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 |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"why did it change from global warming and climate change? whats the difference?" Because it wont only cause warming. Climate instability is better. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"why did it change from global warming and climate change? whats the difference?" Because ironically, as the mean global temperature increases parts of the world get colder, wetter and dryer. So global warming can be denied by those with vested interests in not changing the status quo. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The solution in my mind is a technological one.A transition away from fossil fuels can only happen if we have a viable alternative. That requires a global response by investing heavily in alternatives and research and development into fusion reactors and solar collectors.It requires political will and public and scientific pressure." I'd agree.. But I'm choosing not to comment till we've got a moderator/judge.. I've already offered it out.. Would you care to be the moderator on another subject when we move from this one. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The solution in my mind is a technological one.A transition away from fossil fuels can only happen if we have a viable alternative. That requires a global response by investing heavily in alternatives and research and development into fusion reactors and solar collectors.It requires political will and public and scientific pressure. I'd agree.. But I'm choosing not to comment till we've got a moderator/judge.. I've already offered it out.. Would you care to be the moderator on another subject when we move from this one." yeah ok. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On a planetary scale it's global warming. Increased CO2 raises the average temperature. More energy in the atmosphere means more extreme weather events, changes oceanic currents etc. This leads to local and regional changes which can be in any direction. However......... In the U.K. our climate has fluctuated markedly even in recent history. The Romans grew vineyards in Northumberland.... too cold for that now. In the 17th C there were frost fairs on the Thames.....way to warm for that now! All without the help of masses of fossil fuels. There is no doubt we ARE affecting our climate...but solar fluctuations can have much larger effects!" After the 9/11 attack in the usa, all flights were cancelled. In that time the global temperature dropped 1 centigrade. I doubt fluctuations in sun spots, or the photonic energy that's deflected by the earth's magnetic field is the cause. Co2 is al well known and studies gas. It's like saying a hangover was caused by the crisps in you ate in a pub along with 10 pints. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The solution in my mind is a technological one.A transition away from fossil fuels can only happen if we have a viable alternative. That requires a global response by investing heavily in alternatives and research and development into fusion reactors and solar collectors.It requires political will and public and scientific pressure."  
I agree... except that there is no problem in fossil fuels as part of the mix ! They should however be gradually reduced in terms of the percentage of that mix ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On a planetary scale it's global warming. Increased CO2 raises the average temperature. More energy in the atmosphere means more extreme weather events, changes oceanic currents etc. This leads to local and regional changes which can be in any direction. However......... In the U.K. our climate has fluctuated markedly even in recent history. The Romans grew vineyards in Northumberland.... too cold for that now. In the 17th C there were frost fairs on the Thames.....way to warm for that now! All without the help of masses of fossil fuels. There is no doubt we ARE affecting our climate...but solar fluctuations can have much larger effects! After the 9/11 attack in the usa, all flights were cancelled. In that time the global temperature dropped 1 centigrade. I doubt fluctuations in sun spots, or the photonic energy that's deflected by the earth's magnetic field is the cause. Co2 is al well known and studies gas. It's like saying a hangover was caused by the crisps in you ate in a pub along with 10 pints. " Wrong! Co2 is at best a very poor ,greenhouse gas ! If at all ! In fact its not even a pollutant ! 
The only ones who defend that Co2 is a green house gas are the ones making money of the climate scam !
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/carbon-trading.htm
http://www.ctxglobal.com/
This is now the biggest scam of the 21rst century ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"why did it change from global warming and climate change? whats the difference?" The difference is that when the actual science showed that temperatures were not actually going up as the pundits and alarmist and the "climate " models "predicted" , and in fact, they were going down in some parts of the planet, they had to come up with a more .... generic definition, that could include more BS science ! So they went fro bad to worse !
"Climate change" an expression that is the epitome of ridicule and stupidity !
Why ?
The earth's climate is dynamic , its in constant change ! It has periods of faster or slower change and periods of lesser fluctuation ! This has been going on for millions of years long before man existed , and will continue regardless of man´s more or less influence !
So cool it !  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Firstly let me say c02 is the main driver for anthropological climate change, increasing c02 levels increases the amount of solar energy captured by the earth(they've already looked at soar output, its been down itself over the last 100 years) but Civilisations ARE heat engines, this has been widely proven be serval papers for years. Sulphate aerosols (that's fine particulates caused by industrialization) actually lower the amount of solar energy getting through in the first place (if you crunch the numbers its about 3 degrees c). It takes about 3-5 days for them to fall out of the atmosphere.. That means 3-5 days after human activity of burning fossil fuels stops you'd get a 3 degree increase in global temperature!...3 days. C02 stays in the atmosphere for nearly 500 years, theres a twenty lag on its effect as well, so we're only actually seeing the effects of 1997s c02 output today, since 1997 c02 emissions have skyrocketed of course. Methane a smallish by product of human activity is 100 times more powerful than c02, luckily it lasts in the atmosphere alot less than c02 only about 20 years but it of course degenerates INTO c02 itself after 20 years so that 20 year figure is immaterial. The earth has trillions of tonnes of frozen (methane clathrates) all over the northern hemisphere left over from that warm period in history 200 million years ago, release a small percentage of them and the c02 we release is immaterial!. Now let's talk temperatures, were 1.2 degrees above the mean already, what they actually say is going above 1.5 degrees will be bad.. Really bad, above 2 it's a disaster, 3 don't even think about and 4 apocalyptic, add those 3 degrees of cooling from the sulphate aerosols I was talking about before and where are we! we're at 4.2 degrees above the mean, 6 degrees and all complex life on earth ends and it ends really fucking quickly.. Anyhow, its not impossible to stop sure.. Yellow stone going up tomorrow might give you another 80 years of global cooling maybe? Of course it would wipe North America instantly and 80% of humans as well in the following decade of no crops but its NOT a solution as civilisations are HEAT engines by nature, there ALWAYS going to create heat which will be trapped and change climate, the life that evolved in that climate was designed by evolution for that climate and requires 1000s of years to evolve to another climate, complex life (zoo life) requires habitat (lesser life) to live off.. Hey it's a biosphere yer know! .. No lesser life, no complex life. Its a predicament not a problem, problems are things we can find solutions to predicaments are things that don't have Solutions! "
I agree with ...most of what you posted!
But there are two big mistakes , or misconceptions :
1- you overstate the role of CO2 !
2- You underestimate the role of methane.
Co2 is not a pollutant !
Also , Humanity has not done well when the planet was cold during the glacial period, faired better when climate warmed up ! I don't agree that a degree or two , is going to be catastrophic, we will just adapt , as we have done to date !
"c02 is the main driver for anthropological climate change"
That is the biggest BS argument to cajole joe citizen into guilt and paying ever growing "environmental" taxes and tariffs !
But people like Al Gore got rich on that so they thank you for promoting the lie !
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 .
But I'll have a go seen as I'm d*unk  .
Your using pollutants totally out of context, anything can be a pollutant regardless of whether its good or bad in one percentage or another, like water is good for you in the right amount, but drink ten gallons and its bad for you, at that point it's a pollutant yes?.
C02 is the main driver of man made climate change, spectrum analysis in the stratosphere measures which wave length is escaping and which isn't, funnily enough when you do this it turns out that the wave length at c02 is the one not escaping into space, so we know it's c02 that's causing the trapped heat, the basic mechanism of c02 trapping long wave radiation was done by a guy called Tyndall in the 1850s this isn't new science!.
Methane oxidises in the atmosphere to create c02 and H20
Water vapour is in itself a greenhouse gas, the more energy trapped in the atmosphere allows more water vapour, more water vapour traps more energy and so on and so on.
Nobody ever denied that climate changes naturally?, in fact we know most of what we know about it from studying climate change
100,000 year cycles from changes in the orbit,25,000 year cycles from the wobbles around the axis, solar output variances..
Of course the naturally occurring climate change happens over these extremely long cycles like the one were currently in the inter glacial period 12,000 years ago, or before that the ice age which was 2 million years old.
Life evolves given time?
However theres a big fucking jump to just say life will adapt to a six degree swing over a 50 year period (the difference between the ice age and today is about 6 degrees).
The earth is warming
Glaciers are melting
The artic sea ice is almost gone
Complex life will die shortly after its habitat goes from not being able to evolve in a 50 year window.
180 species a day goes extinct, its just our turn | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try not to get involved in arguments over climate change anymore, it was my new year's resolution .
But I'll have a go seen as I'm d*unk .
Your using pollutants totally out of context, anything can be a pollutant regardless of whether its good or bad in one percentage or another, like water is good for you in the right amount, but drink ten gallons and its bad for you, at that point it's a pollutant yes?.
C02 is the main driver of man made climate change, spectrum analysis in the stratosphere measures which wave length is escaping and which isn't, funnily enough when you do this it turns out that the wave length at c02 is the one not escaping into space, so we know it's c02 that's causing the trapped heat, the basic mechanism of c02 trapping long wave radiation was done by a guy called Tyndall in the 1850s this isn't new science!.
Methane oxidises in the atmosphere to create c02 and H20
Water vapour is in itself a greenhouse gas, the more energy trapped in the atmosphere allows more water vapour, more water vapour traps more energy and so on and so on.
Nobody ever denied that climate changes naturally?, in fact we know most of what we know about it from studying climate change
100,000 year cycles from changes in the orbit,25,000 year cycles from the wobbles around the axis, solar output variances..
Of course the naturally occurring climate change happens over these extremely long cycles like the one were currently in the inter glacial period 12,000 years ago, or before that the ice age which was 2 million years old.
Life evolves given time?
However theres a big fucking jump to just say life will adapt to a six degree swing over a 50 year period (the difference between the ice age and today is about 6 degrees).
The earth is warming
Glaciers are melting
The artic sea ice is almost gone
Complex life will die shortly after its habitat goes from not being able to evolve in a 50 year window.
180 species a day goes extinct, its just our turn"I am with you on not getting involved in "climate change " arguments ! So keeping it as light as possible .... " The earth is warming Glaciers are melting" Yes... there is a reason we are in an "inter glacial period " so there is no surprise there ! "The artic sea ice is almost gone" That has its benefits as well ! But its not as bad as that ! "Complex life will die shortly after its habitat goes from not being able to evolve in a 50 year window." That is a great exaggeration ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try not to get involved in arguments over climate change anymore, it was my new year's resolution .
But I'll have a go seen as I'm d*unk .
Your using pollutants totally out of context, anything can be a pollutant regardless of whether its good or bad in one percentage or another, like water is good for you in the right amount, but drink ten gallons and its bad for you, at that point it's a pollutant yes?.
C02 is the main driver of man made climate change, spectrum analysis in the stratosphere measures which wave length is escaping and which isn't, funnily enough when you do this it turns out that the wave length at c02 is the one not escaping into space, so we know it's c02 that's causing the trapped heat, the basic mechanism of c02 trapping long wave radiation was done by a guy called Tyndall in the 1850s this isn't new science!.
Methane oxidises in the atmosphere to create c02 and H20
Water vapour is in itself a greenhouse gas, the more energy trapped in the atmosphere allows more water vapour, more water vapour traps more energy and so on and so on.
Nobody ever denied that climate changes naturally?, in fact we know most of what we know about it from studying climate change
100,000 year cycles from changes in the orbit,25,000 year cycles from the wobbles around the axis, solar output variances..
Of course the naturally occurring climate change happens over these extremely long cycles like the one were currently in the inter glacial period 12,000 years ago, or before that the ice age which was 2 million years old.
Life evolves given time?
However theres a big fucking jump to just say life will adapt to a six degree swing over a 50 year period (the difference between the ice age and today is about 6 degrees).
The earth is warming
Glaciers are melting
The artic sea ice is almost gone
Complex life will die shortly after its habitat goes from not being able to evolve in a 50 year window.
180 species a day goes extinct, its just our turn
I am with you on not getting involved in "climate change " arguments !
So keeping it as light as possible ....
" The earth is warming
Glaciers are melting"
Yes... there is a reason we are in an "inter glacial period " so there is no surprise there !
"The artic sea ice is almost gone"
That has its benefits as well ! But its not as bad as that !
"Complex life will die shortly after its habitat goes from not being able to evolve in a 50 year window."
That is a great exaggeration ! ". No I made a mistake in my d*unk exuberance, its 1.5 degrees difference between the ice age and the inter glacial (today). Six degrees is the difference between today and hot House earth (dinosaur). In the great die off 250 million years ago the earth went from ice age to hot House (about 10 degrees) in a time period of between 900 years to 18,000 years (it wasn't linear, it came in a few spikes) anyhow in that period 90% of species went extinct (hence the name great die off) inability to evolve to climate change in a short period, the 90% was the larger animals mostly but also the plant life, grass, shrubs, trees,its why when you go from Portugal to the UK you notice we have different flora and fauna, yours has adapted to Portuguese climate and ours to UK climate Yadda yadda yadda. Even plants have a symbiotic relationship with the fungi in the ground, the water the pests that eat it and insects that pollinate it. Homo sapiens (the wise ape) have only ever existed between ice age and today or a 1.5 degree difference and your right we really only thrived in the inter glacial period which had a 0.2 degree variance. Artic summer sea ice is almost gone, probably gone within 5 years, when that's gone the sea water rises rapidly.. Science experiment for you! Take a glass of water put some ice in it, measure its temperature.. It stays cold.. Now measure how long that water takes to reach room temperature once that last slither of ice has melted!... I'll guess at about 20 minutes (the energy required to melt 1 gramme of ice is the same amount required to take the water from 1 degree to 80 degrees) .. Physics hey ain't it a bugger | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try not to get involved in arguments over climate change anymore, it was my new year's resolution .
But I'll have a go seen as I'm d*unk .
Your using pollutants totally out of context, anything can be a pollutant regardless of whether its good or bad in one percentage or another, like water is good for you in the right amount, but drink ten gallons and its bad for you, at that point it's a pollutant yes?.
C02 is the main driver of man made climate change, spectrum analysis in the stratosphere measures which wave length is escaping and which isn't, funnily enough when you do this it turns out that the wave length at c02 is the one not escaping into space, so we know it's c02 that's causing the trapped heat, the basic mechanism of c02 trapping long wave radiation was done by a guy called Tyndall in the 1850s this isn't new science!.
Methane oxidises in the atmosphere to create c02 and H20
Water vapour is in itself a greenhouse gas, the more energy trapped in the atmosphere allows more water vapour, more water vapour traps more energy and so on and so on.
Nobody ever denied that climate changes naturally?, in fact we know most of what we know about it from studying climate change
100,000 year cycles from changes in the orbit,25,000 year cycles from the wobbles around the axis, solar output variances..
Of course the naturally occurring climate change happens over these extremely long cycles like the one were currently in the inter glacial period 12,000 years ago, or before that the ice age which was 2 million years old.
Life evolves given time?
However theres a big fucking jump to just say life will adapt to a six degree swing over a 50 year period (the difference between the ice age and today is about 6 degrees).
The earth is warming
Glaciers are melting
The artic sea ice is almost gone
Complex life will die shortly after its habitat goes from not being able to evolve in a 50 year window.
180 species a day goes extinct, its just our turn
I am with you on not getting involved in "climate change " arguments !
So keeping it as light as possible ....
" The earth is warming
Glaciers are melting"
Yes... there is a reason we are in an "inter glacial period " so there is no surprise there !
"The artic sea ice is almost gone"
That has its benefits as well ! But its not as bad as that !
"Complex life will die shortly after its habitat goes from not being able to evolve in a 50 year window."
That is a great exaggeration ! "Of course Tony you are forgetting that it takes energy to change state therefore melting ice to form water actually requires a lot more energy than raising the ambient temperature of that water. Therefore what you see as a nothing is actually a very big deal because it is not sea ice that is the problem (although sea is the earths major heat sink). The problem is it is land based ice that we are losing as witnessed by retreating glaciers across the world. Further as the ice melts we lose the mirror that reflects so much of the suns energy back into space. To further add to this problem we replace that ice with a near perfect heat-sink to absorb the energy and further exasperate the problem. It really is quite simple first year secondary school physics on a global scale... Remember your teacher with the flask of a known weight of warm water adding a know weight of ice cubes and measuring how much energy it took to melt them by recording the temperature drop? Or were you skiving off that day? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"On a planetary scale it's global warming. Increased CO2 raises the average temperature. More energy in the atmosphere means more extreme weather events, changes oceanic currents etc. This leads to local and regional changes which can be in any direction. However......... In the U.K. our climate has fluctuated markedly even in recent history. The Romans grew vineyards in Northumberland.... too cold for that now. In the 17th C there were frost fairs on the Thames.....way to warm for that now! All without the help of masses of fossil fuels. There is no doubt we ARE affecting our climate...but solar fluctuations can have much larger effects! After the 9/11 attack in the usa, all flights were cancelled. In that time the global temperature dropped 1 centigrade. I doubt fluctuations in sun spots, or the photonic energy that's deflected by the earth's magnetic field is the cause. Co2 is al well known and studies gas. It's like saying a hangover was caused by the crisps in you ate in a pub along with 10 pints. " The 9/11 temperature drop theory was challenged by 2 separate studies in 2009. Found this on a BBC report: "...a US study by Dr Gang Hong of Texas A&M University has found that DTR (diurnal temperature range) variations of 1°C during September aren't all that unusual and that the change in 2001 was probably attributable to low cloud cover. Elsewhere, a team at Leeds University, working with the Met Office Hadley Centre, ran contrails through its climate models and found that you'd need about 200 times the quantity of flights over America to produce a significant effect on DTR. It begs the question of why the idea gained so much traction. The three-day grounding was an unprecedented scientific opportunity, yes, but the sample size was arguably far too tiny to have ever produced anything but indicative findings and certainly nothing approaching definitive proof." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The solution in my mind is a technological one.A transition away from fossil fuels can only happen if we have a viable alternative. That requires a global response by investing heavily in alternatives and research and development into fusion reactors and solar collectors.It requires political will and public and scientific pressure." In addition to a technological solution. We should begin reforesting the planet to help rebalancing the carbon cycle. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem is , developing Country's want what we have , so copy how we did it , i.e. Chop down trees , build power stations , mine , etc etc . So we can't just preach , But we should practice what we preach and help and compensate them not to follow the same path ! Also I think China And India just don't Care ! " China suspended construction on most of its planned coal-power plants — more than 100 of them. South Korea’s new president just announced he’d shut down 10 big coal plants, at least temporarily. Chinese coal plants are producing more power with less pollution, and soon they’ll be more efficient than coal plants in the U.S. India announced that only electric cars would be sold in that country by 2030. China President Xi Jinping has a new plan to invest $900 billion in international green development and infrastructure. Trump on the other hand wants to leave the Paris climate treaty agreement and mine more coal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem is , developing Country's want what we have , so copy how we did it , i.e. Chop down trees , build power stations , mine , etc etc . So we can't just preach , But we should practice what we preach and help and compensate them not to follow the same path ! Also I think China And India just don't Care ! China suspended construction on most of its planned coal-power plants — more than 100 of them. South Korea’s new president just announced he’d shut down 10 big coal plants, at least temporarily. Chinese coal plants are producing more power with less pollution, and soon they’ll be more efficient than coal plants in the U.S. India announced that only electric cars would be sold in that country by 2030. China President Xi Jinping has a new plan to invest $900 billion in international green development and infrastructure. Trump on the other hand wants to leave the Paris climate treaty agreement and mine more coal." Happy to stand corrected  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"China still has a huge problem with pollution but they are beginning to adress it.They are leading the way with solar panel construction and production.Climate change has begun to effect fresh water supplies and crop production in china.1 °C of regional mean warming is estimated to reduce wheat yield 3 to 10 percent in China. Grain crops mature earlier at higher temperatures, reducing the critical growth period and leading to lower yields ." . Why do you think they've been ploughing massively into genetic modification for the last 20+ years. the ones with they're fingers in their ears going lalalalala everything will be fine higher temps and more c02 will be great for crops are oblivious to facts. crop yields have been falling for a decade+. Water levels have been falling for decades most of the water we've been using globally comes from aquifers contrary to perceptions these DO NOT refill, they were filled by retreating glaciers. Climate has already shifted, when people say when will the shit hit the fan I laugh because the shits been hitting the fan for ages, the shits now hitting the shit and piling up fast in a massive shit fest. Oh my head hurts, I need to either drink less or get to bed earlier | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"China still has a huge problem with pollution but they are beginning to adress it.They are leading the way with solar panel construction and production.Climate change has begun to effect fresh water supplies and crop production in china.1 °C of regional mean warming is estimated to reduce wheat yield 3 to 10 percent in China. Grain crops mature earlier at higher temperatures, reducing the critical growth period and leading to lower yields .. Why do you think they've been ploughing massively into genetic modification for the last 20+ years. the ones with they're fingers in their ears going lalalalala everything will be fine higher temps and more c02 will be great for crops are oblivious to facts. crop yields have been falling for a decade+. Water levels have been falling for decades most of the water we've been using globally comes from aquifers contrary to perceptions these DO NOT refill, they were filled by retreating glaciers. Climate has already shifted, when people say when will the shit hit the fan I laugh because the shits been hitting the fan for ages, the shits now hitting the shit and piling up fast in a massive shit fest. Oh my head hurts, I need to either drink less or get to bed earlier "Valid points .We need to invest in GM crops that are drought and flood resitant.We also need better water management.We need to be prepared . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try not to get involved in arguments over climate change anymore, it was my new year's resolution .
But I'll have a go seen as I'm d*unk .
Your using pollutants totally out of context, anything can be a pollutant regardless of whether its good or bad in one percentage or another, like water is good for you in the right amount, but drink ten gallons and its bad for you, at that point it's a pollutant yes?.
C02 is the main driver of man made climate change, spectrum analysis in the stratosphere measures which wave length is escaping and which isn't, funnily enough when you do this it turns out that the wave length at c02 is the one not escaping into space, so we know it's c02 that's causing the trapped heat, the basic mechanism of c02 trapping long wave radiation was done by a guy called Tyndall in the 1850s this isn't new science!.
Methane oxidises in the atmosphere to create c02 and H20
Water vapour is in itself a greenhouse gas, the more energy trapped in the atmosphere allows more water vapour, more water vapour traps more energy and so on and so on.
Nobody ever denied that climate changes naturally?, in fact we know most of what we know about it from studying climate change
100,000 year cycles from changes in the orbit,25,000 year cycles from the wobbles around the axis, solar output variances..
Of course the naturally occurring climate change happens over these extremely long cycles like the one were currently in the inter glacial period 12,000 years ago, or before that the ice age which was 2 million years old.
Life evolves given time?
However theres a big fucking jump to just say life will adapt to a six degree swing over a 50 year period (the difference between the ice age and today is about 6 degrees).
The earth is warming
Glaciers are melting
The artic sea ice is almost gone
Complex life will die shortly after its habitat goes from not being able to evolve in a 50 year window.
180 species a day goes extinct, its just our turn
I am with you on not getting involved in "climate change " arguments !
So keeping it as light as possible ....
" The earth is warming
Glaciers are melting"
Yes... there is a reason we are in an "inter glacial period " so there is no surprise there !
"The artic sea ice is almost gone"
That has its benefits as well ! But its not as bad as that !
"Complex life will die shortly after its habitat goes from not being able to evolve in a 50 year window."
That is a great exaggeration ! "Can you actually provide some evidence for your claims? The general models show that increased Methane, CO2, nitrogen and sulphur oxide levels which we are increasing through our industrial activities will eventually lead to increased ocean acidification (ruining global and local fishing stocks), it could well lead to warming, which would dump freshwater into many of the Ocean conveyor systems - this would lead to a brief period of increased warming, with flooding and storm surges, followed with a shut down of warm ocean currents which would, in turn, lead to sub arctic conditions. This would ruin european and north east america's agricultural harvests. I mean I'd love to see the the chemistry, biology, and oceanographic research which backs up your claims. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem is , developing Country's want what we have , so copy how we did it , i.e. Chop down trees , build power stations , mine , etc etc . So we can't just preach , But we should practice what we preach and help and compensate them not to follow the same path ! Also I think China And India just don't Care ! China suspended construction on most of its planned coal-power plants — more than 100 of them. South Korea’s new president just announced he’d shut down 10 big coal plants, at least temporarily. Chinese coal plants are producing more power with less pollution, and soon they’ll be more efficient than coal plants in the U.S. India announced that only electric cars would be sold in that country by 2030. China President Xi Jinping has a new plan to invest $900 billion in international green development and infrastructure. Trump on the other hand wants to leave the Paris climate treaty agreement and mine more coal." Unfortunarely ,Bob , Its pie in the sky ! I will have to see it to believe it ! Their record on not good. And I don't believe all those good intentions will happen ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try not to get involved in arguments over climate change anymore, it was my new year's resolution .
But I'll have a go seen as I'm d*unk .
Your using pollutants totally out of context, anything can be a pollutant regardless of whether its good or bad in one percentage or another, like water is good for you in the right amount, but drink ten gallons and its bad for you, at that point it's a pollutant yes?.
C02 is the main driver of man made climate change, spectrum analysis in the stratosphere measures which wave length is escaping and which isn't, funnily enough when you do this it turns out that the wave length at c02 is the one not escaping into space, so we know it's c02 that's causing the trapped heat, the basic mechanism of c02 trapping long wave radiation was done by a guy called Tyndall in the 1850s this isn't new science!.
Methane oxidises in the atmosphere to create c02 and H20
Water vapour is in itself a greenhouse gas, the more energy trapped in the atmosphere allows more water vapour, more water vapour traps more energy and so on and so on.
Nobody ever denied that climate changes naturally?, in fact we know most of what we know about it from studying climate change
100,000 year cycles from changes in the orbit,25,000 year cycles from the wobbles around the axis, solar output variances..
Of course the naturally occurring climate change happens over these extremely long cycles like the one were currently in the inter glacial period 12,000 years ago, or before that the ice age which was 2 million years old.
Life evolves given time?
However theres a big fucking jump to just say life will adapt to a six degree swing over a 50 year period (the difference between the ice age and today is about 6 degrees).
The earth is warming
Glaciers are melting
The artic sea ice is almost gone
Complex life will die shortly after its habitat goes from not being able to evolve in a 50 year window.
180 species a day goes extinct, its just our turn
I am with you on not getting involved in "climate change " arguments !
So keeping it as light as possible ....
" The earth is warming
Glaciers are melting"
Yes... there is a reason we are in an "inter glacial period " so there is no surprise there !
"The artic sea ice is almost gone"
That has its benefits as well ! But its not as bad as that !
"Complex life will die shortly after its habitat goes from not being able to evolve in a 50 year window."
That is a great exaggeration !
Can you actually provide some evidence for your claims?
The general models show that increased Methane, CO2, nitrogen and sulphur oxide levels which we are increasing through our industrial activities will eventually lead to increased ocean acidification (ruining global and local fishing stocks), it could well lead to warming, which would dump freshwater into many of the Ocean conveyor systems - this would lead to a brief period of increased warming, with flooding and storm surges, followed with a shut down of warm ocean currents which would, in turn, lead to sub arctic conditions. This would ruin european and north east america's agricultural harvests.
I mean I'd love to see the the chemistry, biology, and oceanographic research which backs up your claims."Too much and too complex to put on here, so trying to keep it lite ! The complex catastrophe you describing has already happened before , and man had no intervention in it ! It was called the little ice age ! It lasted between the 14th century to the mid 19th century ! It was preceded by the Medieval warming period that took place between late 9th century to the 14th century ! Back then there was no oil or coal industry releasing all that bad Co2 and other gases into the atmosphere ! So this proves that these extreme changes occur without any human intervention !
Can we have an effect ? Sure... but a minor one at best!
Now.... having said that , I am referring to climate !
Us polluting, and wrecking our enviroment, that is a separate issue that needs to be dealt with !
But it can only be done successfully, if we sever the link to the "climate change" fanatics ...and business interests !
I am talking about not dumping all manner of shit into rivers , allowing nature to recover its natural balance, avoiding landfill dumps , by recycling .
Also exploring and using methane from existing landfill sites !
Better forest and other resource management !
Just to mention a few ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try not to get involved in arguments over climate change anymore, it was my new year's resolution .
But I'll have a go seen as I'm d*unk .
Your using pollutants totally out of context, anything can be a pollutant regardless of whether its good or bad in one percentage or another, like water is good for you in the right amount, but drink ten gallons and its bad for you, at that point it's a pollutant yes?.
C02 is the main driver of man made climate change, spectrum analysis in the stratosphere measures which wave length is escaping and which isn't, funnily enough when you do this it turns out that the wave length at c02 is the one not escaping into space, so we know it's c02 that's causing the trapped heat, the basic mechanism of c02 trapping long wave radiation was done by a guy called Tyndall in the 1850s this isn't new science!.
Methane oxidises in the atmosphere to create c02 and H20
Water vapour is in itself a greenhouse gas, the more energy trapped in the atmosphere allows more water vapour, more water vapour traps more energy and so on and so on.
Nobody ever denied that climate changes naturally?, in fact we know most of what we know about it from studying climate change
100,000 year cycles from changes in the orbit,25,000 year cycles from the wobbles around the axis, solar output variances..
Of course the naturally occurring climate change happens over these extremely long cycles like the one were currently in the inter glacial period 12,000 years ago, or before that the ice age which was 2 million years old.
Life evolves given time?
However theres a big fucking jump to just say life will adapt to a six degree swing over a 50 year period (the difference between the ice age and today is about 6 degrees).
The earth is warming
Glaciers are melting
The artic sea ice is almost gone
Complex life will die shortly after its habitat goes from not being able to evolve in a 50 year window.
180 species a day goes extinct, its just our turn
I am with you on not getting involved in "climate change " arguments !
So keeping it as light as possible ....
" The earth is warming
Glaciers are melting"
Yes... there is a reason we are in an "inter glacial period " so there is no surprise there !
"The artic sea ice is almost gone"
That has its benefits as well ! But its not as bad as that !
"Complex life will die shortly after its habitat goes from not being able to evolve in a 50 year window."
That is a great exaggeration !
Can you actually provide some evidence for your claims?
The general models show that increased Methane, CO2, nitrogen and sulphur oxide levels which we are increasing through our industrial activities will eventually lead to increased ocean acidification (ruining global and local fishing stocks), it could well lead to warming, which would dump freshwater into many of the Ocean conveyor systems - this would lead to a brief period of increased warming, with flooding and storm surges, followed with a shut down of warm ocean currents which would, in turn, lead to sub arctic conditions. This would ruin european and north east america's agricultural harvests.
I mean I'd love to see the the chemistry, biology, and oceanographic research which backs up your claims.
Too much and too complex to put on here, so trying to keep it lite !
The complex catastrophe you describing has already happened before , and man had no intervention in it !
It was called the little ice age !
It lasted between the 14th century to the mid 19th century !
It was preceded by the Medieval warming period that took place between late 9th century to the 14th century !
Back then there was no oil or coal industry releasing all that bad Co2 and other gases into the atmosphere !
So this proves that these extreme changes occur without any human intervention !
Can we have an effect ? Sure... but a minor one at best!
Now.... having said that , I am referring to climate !
Us polluting, and wrecking our enviroment, that is a separate issue that needs to be dealt with !
But it can only be done successfully, if we sever the link to the "climate change" fanatics ...and business interests !
I am talking about not dumping all manner of shit into rivers , allowing nature to recover its natural balance, avoiding landfill dumps , by recycling .
Also exploring and using methane from existing landfill sites !
Better forest and other resource management !
Just to mention a few !"Personally I think climate change may be the stimulus this planet needed to get it's arse into gear over pollution. So I don't think divorcing the issue is a sensible idea. Whether we're having a massive effect (personally I'm under the impression we are And it would be almost impossible not to be) or not.. the world does need a spring clean.. And if we kill two birds with one stone.. great.. if it's one bird and one imaginary bird.. still great. So you lot arguing over climate change is a bit pointless.. in my honest opinion. Let's get as much tech on renewable energy as possible. Let's start planning cities and towns to take up less surface space and less interconnecting infrastructure surface space. Get deserts solar pannelled, currents and waves buoyed up, wind farms blowing away, electric cars, magnet trains, driverless vehicles, mandatory renewables in new builds and strict laws on recycling, avoidance of plastics and stop companies from churning out the next model of whatever it is... three months after the last one came out! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"China still has a huge problem with pollution but they are beginning to adress it.They are leading the way with solar panel construction and production.Climate change has begun to effect fresh water supplies and crop production in china.1 °C of regional mean warming is estimated to reduce wheat yield 3 to 10 percent in China. Grain crops mature earlier at higher temperatures, reducing the critical growth period and leading to lower yields .. Why do you think they've been ploughing massively into genetic modification for the last 20+ years. the ones with they're fingers in their ears going lalalalala everything will be fine higher temps and more c02 will be great for crops are oblivious to facts. crop yields have been falling for a decade+. Water levels have been falling for decades most of the water we've been using globally comes from aquifers contrary to perceptions these DO NOT refill, they were filled by retreating glaciers. Climate has already shifted, when people say when will the shit hit the fan I laugh because the shits been hitting the fan for ages, the shits now hitting the shit and piling up fast in a massive shit fest. Oh my head hurts, I need to either drink less or get to bed earlier Valid points .We need to invest in GM crops that are drought and flood resitant.We also need better water management.We need to be prepared ."But arent you a green party supporter,now remind me again of their stance on GM | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"China still has a huge problem with pollution but they are beginning to adress it.They are leading the way with solar panel construction and production.Climate change has begun to effect fresh water supplies and crop production in china.1 °C of regional mean warming is estimated to reduce wheat yield 3 to 10 percent in China. Grain crops mature earlier at higher temperatures, reducing the critical growth period and leading to lower yields .. Why do you think they've been ploughing massively into genetic modification for the last 20+ years. the ones with they're fingers in their ears going lalalalala everything will be fine higher temps and more c02 will be great for crops are oblivious to facts. crop yields have been falling for a decade+. Water levels have been falling for decades most of the water we've been using globally comes from aquifers contrary to perceptions these DO NOT refill, they were filled by retreating glaciers. Climate has already shifted, when people say when will the shit hit the fan I laugh because the shits been hitting the fan for ages, the shits now hitting the shit and piling up fast in a massive shit fest. Oh my head hurts, I need to either drink less or get to bed earlier Valid points .We need to invest in GM crops that are drought and flood resitant.We also need better water management.We need to be prepared .
But arent you a green party supporter,now remind me again of their stance on GM "I cant agree with every policy they put forward i doubt anyone is 100% behind every tory or labour policy.For me they are the best of a bad bunch. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is only one way to solve climate change and that is to reverse population growth. I would think that we could probably live in sustainable balance with the environment with a worldwide population of 3 to 4 billion and still retain and advance our present standard of technology and living while extending it to all." Could you present some ways in which this would be implemented? Not huge policy detail, just the key things - voluntary or invoultary? Equally divided between countries or concentrated in the southern hemisphere? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The solution in my mind is a technological one.A transition away from fossil fuels can only happen if we have a viable alternative. That requires a global response by investing heavily in alternatives and research and development into fusion reactors and solar collectors.It requires political will and public and scientific pressure." Could you outline what fusion reactors and solar collectors offer above the things people will be familiar with and what the progress to date has been with them? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try not to get involved in arguments over climate change anymore, it was my new year's resolution .
But I'll have a go seen as I'm d*unk .
Your using pollutants totally out of context, anything can be a pollutant regardless of whether its good or bad in one percentage or another, like water is good for you in the right amount, but drink ten gallons and its bad for you, at that point it's a pollutant yes?.
C02 is the main driver of man made climate change, spectrum analysis in the stratosphere measures which wave length is escaping and which isn't, funnily enough when you do this it turns out that the wave length at c02 is the one not escaping into space, so we know it's c02 that's causing the trapped heat, the basic mechanism of c02 trapping long wave radiation was done by a guy called Tyndall in the 1850s this isn't new science!.
Methane oxidises in the atmosphere to create c02 and H20
Water vapour is in itself a greenhouse gas, the more energy trapped in the atmosphere allows more water vapour, more water vapour traps more energy and so on and so on.
Nobody ever denied that climate changes naturally?, in fact we know most of what we know about it from studying climate change
100,000 year cycles from changes in the orbit,25,000 year cycles from the wobbles around the axis, solar output variances..
Of course the naturally occurring climate change happens over these extremely long cycles like the one were currently in the inter glacial period 12,000 years ago, or before that the ice age which was 2 million years old.
Life evolves given time?
However theres a big fucking jump to just say life will adapt to a six degree swing over a 50 year period (the difference between the ice age and today is about 6 degrees).
The earth is warming
Glaciers are melting
The artic sea ice is almost gone
Complex life will die shortly after its habitat goes from not being able to evolve in a 50 year window.
180 species a day goes extinct, its just our turn
I am with you on not getting involved in "climate change " arguments !
So keeping it as light as possible ....
" The earth is warming
Glaciers are melting"
Yes... there is a reason we are in an "inter glacial period " so there is no surprise there !
"The artic sea ice is almost gone"
That has its benefits as well ! But its not as bad as that !
"Complex life will die shortly after its habitat goes from not being able to evolve in a 50 year window."
That is a great exaggeration !
Can you actually provide some evidence for your claims?
The general models show that increased Methane, CO2, nitrogen and sulphur oxide levels which we are increasing through our industrial activities will eventually lead to increased ocean acidification (ruining global and local fishing stocks), it could well lead to warming, which would dump freshwater into many of the Ocean conveyor systems - this would lead to a brief period of increased warming, with flooding and storm surges, followed with a shut down of warm ocean currents which would, in turn, lead to sub arctic conditions. This would ruin european and north east america's agricultural harvests.
I mean I'd love to see the the chemistry, biology, and oceanographic research which backs up your claims.
Too much and too complex to put on here, so trying to keep it lite !
The complex catastrophe you describing has already happened before , and man had no intervention in it !
It was called the little ice age !
It lasted between the 14th century to the mid 19th century !
It was preceded by the Medieval warming period that took place between late 9th century to the 14th century !
Back then there was no oil or coal industry releasing all that bad Co2 and other gases into the atmosphere !
So this proves that these extreme changes occur without any human intervention !
Can we have an effect ? Sure... but a minor one at best!
Now.... having said that , I am referring to climate !
Us polluting, and wrecking our enviroment, that is a separate issue that needs to be dealt with !
But it can only be done successfully, if we sever the link to the "climate change" fanatics ...and business interests !
I am talking about not dumping all manner of shit into rivers , allowing nature to recover its natural balance, avoiding landfill dumps , by recycling .
Also exploring and using methane from existing landfill sites !
Better forest and other resource management !
Just to mention a few !
Personally I think climate change may be the stimulus this planet needed to get it's arse into gear over pollution. So I don't think divorcing the issue is a sensible idea.
Whether we're having a massive effect (personally I'm under the impression we are And it would be almost impossible not to be) or not.. the world does need a spring clean.. And if we kill two birds with one stone.. great.. if it's one bird and one imaginary bird.. still great.
So you lot arguing over climate change is a bit pointless.. in my honest opinion.
Let's get as much tech on renewable energy as possible. Let's start planning cities and towns to take up less surface space and less interconnecting infrastructure surface space.
Get deserts solar pannelled, currents and waves buoyed up, wind farms blowing away, electric cars, magnet trains, driverless vehicles, mandatory renewables in new builds and strict laws on recycling, avoidance of plastics and stop companies from churning out the next model of whatever it is... three months after the last one came out!"I still insist we will get more done if we separate the too ! Why One , cleaning up , we can tackle ,as its been done and works ! The other we can not ! Climate is way to complex , and no one has a full grip on it ! When you join the two , it results only in serving the economic agenda of the "climate change" lobby ! " So you lot arguing over climate change is a bit pointless.. in my honest opinion. Let's get as much tech on renewable energy as possible. Let's start planning cities and towns to take up less surface space and less interconnecting infrastructure surface space. Get deserts solar pannelled, currents and waves buoyed up, wind farms blowing away, electric cars, magnet trains, driverless vehicles, mandatory renewables in new builds and strict laws on recycling, avoidance of plastics and stop companies from churning out the next model of whatever it is... three months after the last one came out!" I agree ... but that why its not happening or working ! No government is actually really interested , as they could no longer collect those environmentally motivated taxes ! Also all those "Do gooders " and foundations , researchers of "climate science" would be out of a job ! As an example , do you know any country that charges 0 % Vat or other taxes on Solar , be it heating or PV ? Or... that support Recycling companies by applying a lower tax ? Why is it mainly wind and Massive PV that gets benefits ? Why don't electric vehicles get more exemptions to offset cost and lower efficiency ? Do you now see why I favour separating the two issues ?
Its only the combination of the two that allows the eco money grab to make "sense" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try not to get involved in arguments over climate change anymore, it was my new year's resolution .
But I'll have a go seen as I'm d*unk .
Your using pollutants totally out of context, anything can be a pollutant regardless of whether its good or bad in one percentage or another, like water is good for you in the right amount, but drink ten gallons and its bad for you, at that point it's a pollutant yes?.
C02 is the main driver of man made climate change, spectrum analysis in the stratosphere measures which wave length is escaping and which isn't, funnily enough when you do this it turns out that the wave length at c02 is the one not escaping into space, so we know it's c02 that's causing the trapped heat, the basic mechanism of c02 trapping long wave radiation was done by a guy called Tyndall in the 1850s this isn't new science!.
Methane oxidises in the atmosphere to create c02 and H20
Water vapour is in itself a greenhouse gas, the more energy trapped in the atmosphere allows more water vapour, more water vapour traps more energy and so on and so on.
Nobody ever denied that climate changes naturally?, in fact we know most of what we know about it from studying climate change
100,000 year cycles from changes in the orbit,25,000 year cycles from the wobbles around the axis, solar output variances..
Of course the naturally occurring climate change happens over these extremely long cycles like the one were currently in the inter glacial period 12,000 years ago, or before that the ice age which was 2 million years old.
Life evolves given time?
However theres a big fucking jump to just say life will adapt to a six degree swing over a 50 year period (the difference between the ice age and today is about 6 degrees).
The earth is warming
Glaciers are melting
The artic sea ice is almost gone
Complex life will die shortly after its habitat goes from not being able to evolve in a 50 year window.
180 species a day goes extinct, its just our turn
I am with you on not getting involved in "climate change " arguments !
So keeping it as light as possible ....
" The earth is warming
Glaciers are melting"
Yes... there is a reason we are in an "inter glacial period " so there is no surprise there !
"The artic sea ice is almost gone"
That has its benefits as well ! But its not as bad as that !
"Complex life will die shortly after its habitat goes from not being able to evolve in a 50 year window."
That is a great exaggeration !
Can you actually provide some evidence for your claims?
The general models show that increased Methane, CO2, nitrogen and sulphur oxide levels which we are increasing through our industrial activities will eventually lead to increased ocean acidification (ruining global and local fishing stocks), it could well lead to warming, which would dump freshwater into many of the Ocean conveyor systems - this would lead to a brief period of increased warming, with flooding and storm surges, followed with a shut down of warm ocean currents which would, in turn, lead to sub arctic conditions. This would ruin european and north east america's agricultural harvests.
I mean I'd love to see the the chemistry, biology, and oceanographic research which backs up your claims.
Too much and too complex to put on here, so trying to keep it lite !
The complex catastrophe you describing has already happened before , and man had no intervention in it !
It was called the little ice age !
It lasted between the 14th century to the mid 19th century !
It was preceded by the Medieval warming period that took place between late 9th century to the 14th century !
Back then there was no oil or coal industry releasing all that bad Co2 and other gases into the atmosphere !
So this proves that these extreme changes occur without any human intervention !
Can we have an effect ? Sure... but a minor one at best!
Now.... having said that , I am referring to climate !
Us polluting, and wrecking our enviroment, that is a separate issue that needs to be dealt with !
But it can only be done successfully, if we sever the link to the "climate change" fanatics ...and business interests !
I am talking about not dumping all manner of shit into rivers , allowing nature to recover its natural balance, avoiding landfill dumps , by recycling .
Also exploring and using methane from existing landfill sites !
Better forest and other resource management !
Just to mention a few !
Personally I think climate change may be the stimulus this planet needed to get it's arse into gear over pollution. So I don't think divorcing the issue is a sensible idea.
Whether we're having a massive effect (personally I'm under the impression we are And it would be almost impossible not to be) or not.. the world does need a spring clean.. And if we kill two birds with one stone.. great.. if it's one bird and one imaginary bird.. still great.
So you lot arguing over climate change is a bit pointless.. in my honest opinion.
Let's get as much tech on renewable energy as possible. Let's start planning cities and towns to take up less surface space and less interconnecting infrastructure surface space.
Get deserts solar pannelled, currents and waves buoyed up, wind farms blowing away, electric cars, magnet trains, driverless vehicles, mandatory renewables in new builds and strict laws on recycling, avoidance of plastics and stop companies from churning out the next model of whatever it is... three months after the last one came out!"Agreed we shouldn't gamble on our descendants future . We have the technology now to do it.We don't have the political will. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"think the only way is to shrink comsumer demand, big corps want big roi in shortest time possible. fast fashion,new mobile phones coming out every second, huge deforestation to meet the demands of mcds and palm oils, fracking polluting chemicals etc, this planet will survive has done for billions of years, compare that to your 80 or 90. man is biggest problem and dodgy deals and short minded greed" Can you expand this into a solution? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They deny that temperatures are up yet have no explanation for retreating glaciers or disappearing sea ice. I once had somebody tell me that back in the 70s they predicted a new ice age and that since then hurricanes and tornadoes are down in number?. I said why don't you try actually reading what the scientists write.. Nah there government Stooges in it for the money. You know most of them are some of the brightest minds we have don't you! And they earn a tiny percentage of what they could earn in the big multinationals!. Naw still Stooges!. These people are not stupid there just afraid, no amount of evidence or just plain common sense could prise there minds from there stubborn fear generated belief. " Solutions boy solutions!!! It's the solutions thread... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The solution in my mind is a technological one.A transition away from fossil fuels can only happen if we have a viable alternative. That requires a global response by investing heavily in alternatives and research and development into fusion reactors and solar collectors.It requires political will and public and scientific pressure. Could you outline what fusion reactors and solar collectors offer above the things people will be familiar with and what the progress to date has been with them? " Fusion offers a secure, long-term source of supply, with important advantages. These include: no production of greenhouse gases from the fusion process; no long-lived radioactive waste (all waste will be recyclable within 100 years); inherent safety features; and almost unlimited fuel supplies. On current estimates, the cost of fusion-generated electricity is predicted to be broadly comparable to that obtained from fission, renewables and fossil fuels. Fusion, therefore, could have a key role to play in the energy market of the future, with the potential to produce at least 20% of the world's electricity by 2100. Solar collectors or concentrated solar power plants direct heat on to a water chamber to drive a turbine creating electricity. Its clean and we have working plants unlike fussion. In france we have ITER the experimental fussion reactor that 35 countries are building to prove its a viable technology. It wont come on line til the 2020s.Its been 35years in planning and construction started 2010.Many countries are building there own experimental reactors just not on ITERS scale.The cost of this project which is shared is €13 billion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The solution in my mind is a technological one.A transition away from fossil fuels can only happen if we have a viable alternative. That requires a global response by investing heavily in alternatives and research and development into fusion reactors and solar collectors.It requires political will and public and scientific pressure. Could you outline what fusion reactors and solar collectors offer above the things people will be familiar with and what the progress to date has been with them? Fusion offers a secure, long-term source of supply, with important advantages. These include: no production of greenhouse gases from the fusion process; no long-lived radioactive waste (all waste will be recyclable within 100 years); inherent safety features; and almost unlimited fuel supplies. On current estimates, the cost of fusion-generated electricity is predicted to be broadly comparable to that obtained from fission, renewables and fossil fuels. Fusion, therefore, could have a key role to play in the energy market of the future, with the potential to produce at least 20% of the world's electricity by 2100. Solar collectors or concentrated solar power plants direct heat on to a water chamber to drive a turbine creating electricity. Its clean and we have working plants unlike fussion. In france we have ITER the experimental fussion reactor that 35 countries are building to prove its a viable technology. It wont come on line til the 2020s.Its been 35years in planning and construction started 2010.Many countries are building there own experimental reactors just not on ITERS scale.The cost of this project which is shared is €13 billion." So what's the catch? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They deny that temperatures are up yet have no explanation for retreating glaciers or disappearing sea ice. I once had somebody tell me that back in the 70s they predicted a new ice age and that since then hurricanes and tornadoes are down in number?. I said why don't you try actually reading what the scientists write.. Nah there government Stooges in it for the money. You know most of them are some of the brightest minds we have don't you! And they earn a tiny percentage of what they could earn in the big multinationals!. Naw still Stooges!. These people are not stupid there just afraid, no amount of evidence or just plain common sense could prise there minds from there stubborn fear generated belief. Solutions boy solutions!!! It's the solutions thread... " . Enjoy yourself, make time for people, learn empathy for others plights, dont worry about possessions there only temporary anyhow, try not to be jealous, understand that being a small part of something big is better than being a big part of something small, build something, anything, use your own hands and ingenuity to create something you'll be surprised how it fills the soul, pick some litter up, go to a cancer hospital and spend some time taking to other people that have been given a life expectancy then learn how they deal with it, smell the flowers in the gardens on the way out and most of all try not to fuck things up worse than they already are! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They deny that temperatures are up yet have no explanation for retreating glaciers or disappearing sea ice. I once had somebody tell me that back in the 70s they predicted a new ice age and that since then hurricanes and tornadoes are down in number?. I said why don't you try actually reading what the scientists write.. Nah there government Stooges in it for the money. You know most of them are some of the brightest minds we have don't you! And they earn a tiny percentage of what they could earn in the big multinationals!. Naw still Stooges!. These people are not stupid there just afraid, no amount of evidence or just plain common sense could prise there minds from there stubborn fear generated belief. Solutions boy solutions!!! It's the solutions thread... . Enjoy yourself, make time for people, learn empathy for others plights, dont worry about possessions there only temporary anyhow, try not to be jealous, understand that being a small part of something big is better than being a big part of something small, build something, anything, use your own hands and ingenuity to create something you'll be surprised how it fills the soul, pick some litter up, go to a cancer hospital and spend some time taking to other people that have been given a life expectancy then learn how they deal with it, smell the flowers in the gardens on the way out and most of all try not to fuck things up worse than they already are!" So basically, Buddhism | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They deny that temperatures are up yet have no explanation for retreating glaciers or disappearing sea ice. I once had somebody tell me that back in the 70s they predicted a new ice age and that since then hurricanes and tornadoes are down in number?. I said why don't you try actually reading what the scientists write.. Nah there government Stooges in it for the money. You know most of them are some of the brightest minds we have don't you! And they earn a tiny percentage of what they could earn in the big multinationals!. Naw still Stooges!. These people are not stupid there just afraid, no amount of evidence or just plain common sense could prise there minds from there stubborn fear generated belief. Solutions boy solutions!!! It's the solutions thread... . Enjoy yourself, make time for people, learn empathy for others plights, dont worry about possessions there only temporary anyhow, try not to be jealous, understand that being a small part of something big is better than being a big part of something small, build something, anything, use your own hands and ingenuity to create something you'll be surprised how it fills the soul, pick some litter up, go to a cancer hospital and spend some time taking to other people that have been given a life expectancy then learn how they deal with it, smell the flowers in the gardens on the way out and most of all try not to fuck things up worse than they already are! So basically, Buddhism ". I never said I was perfect  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The solution in my mind is a technological one.A transition away from fossil fuels can only happen if we have a viable alternative. That requires a global response by investing heavily in alternatives and research and development into fusion reactors and solar collectors.It requires political will and public and scientific pressure. Could you outline what fusion reactors and solar collectors offer above the things people will be familiar with and what the progress to date has been with them? Fusion offers a secure, long-term source of supply, with important advantages. These include: no production of greenhouse gases from the fusion process; no long-lived radioactive waste (all waste will be recyclable within 100 years); inherent safety features; and almost unlimited fuel supplies. On current estimates, the cost of fusion-generated electricity is predicted to be broadly comparable to that obtained from fission, renewables and fossil fuels. Fusion, therefore, could have a key role to play in the energy market of the future, with the potential to produce at least 20% of the world's electricity by 2100. Solar collectors or concentrated solar power plants direct heat on to a water chamber to drive a turbine creating electricity. Its clean and we have working plants unlike fussion. In france we have ITER the experimental fussion reactor that 35 countries are building to prove its a viable technology. It wont come on line til the 2020s.Its been 35years in planning and construction started 2010.Many countries are building there own experimental reactors just not on ITERS scale.The cost of this project which is shared is €13 billion. So what's the catch? " Apart from getting the design right for sustained fussion which is why ITER is being built.There's no catch. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The solution in my mind is a technological one.A transition away from fossil fuels can only happen if we have a viable alternative. That requires a global response by investing heavily in alternatives and research and development into fusion reactors and solar collectors.It requires political will and public and scientific pressure. Could you outline what fusion reactors and solar collectors offer above the things people will be familiar with and what the progress to date has been with them? Fusion offers a secure, long-term source of supply, with important advantages. These include: no production of greenhouse gases from the fusion process; no long-lived radioactive waste (all waste will be recyclable within 100 years); inherent safety features; and almost unlimited fuel supplies. On current estimates, the cost of fusion-generated electricity is predicted to be broadly comparable to that obtained from fission, renewables and fossil fuels. Fusion, therefore, could have a key role to play in the energy market of the future, with the potential to produce at least 20% of the world's electricity by 2100. Solar collectors or concentrated solar power plants direct heat on to a water chamber to drive a turbine creating electricity. Its clean and we have working plants unlike fussion. In france we have ITER the experimental fussion reactor that 35 countries are building to prove its a viable technology. It wont come on line til the 2020s.Its been 35years in planning and construction started 2010.Many countries are building there own experimental reactors just not on ITERS scale.The cost of this project which is shared is €13 billion. So what's the catch? Apart from getting the design right for sustained fussion which is why ITER is being built.There's no catch." Ok so why is this happening in frace and not here? Sounds like something we should be doing, no? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The solution in my mind is a technological one.A transition away from fossil fuels can only happen if we have a viable alternative. That requires a global response by investing heavily in alternatives and research and development into fusion reactors and solar collectors.It requires political will and public and scientific pressure. Could you outline what fusion reactors and solar collectors offer above the things people will be familiar with and what the progress to date has been with them? Fusion offers a secure, long-term source of supply, with important advantages. These include: no production of greenhouse gases from the fusion process; no long-lived radioactive waste (all waste will be recyclable within 100 years); inherent safety features; and almost unlimited fuel supplies. On current estimates, the cost of fusion-generated electricity is predicted to be broadly comparable to that obtained from fission, renewables and fossil fuels. Fusion, therefore, could have a key role to play in the energy market of the future, with the potential to produce at least 20% of the world's electricity by 2100. Solar collectors or concentrated solar power plants direct heat on to a water chamber to drive a turbine creating electricity. Its clean and we have working plants unlike fussion. In france we have ITER the experimental fussion reactor that 35 countries are building to prove its a viable technology. It wont come on line til the 2020s.Its been 35years in planning and construction started 2010.Many countries are building there own experimental reactors just not on ITERS scale.The cost of this project which is shared is €13 billion. So what's the catch? Apart from getting the design right for sustained fussion which is why ITER is being built.There's no catch. Ok so why is this happening in frace and not here? Sounds like something we should be doing, no? " We invested in ITER as EU members.During the construction phase of the project, Europe has responsibility for approximately 45.5 percent of construction costs, whereas China, India, Japan, Korea, the Russian Federation and the United States will contribute approximately 9.1 percent each. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They deny that temperatures are up yet have no explanation for retreating glaciers or disappearing sea ice. I once had somebody tell me that back in the 70s they predicted a new ice age and that since then hurricanes and tornadoes are down in number?. I said why don't you try actually reading what the scientists write.. Nah there government Stooges in it for the money. You know most of them are some of the brightest minds we have don't you! And they earn a tiny percentage of what they could earn in the big multinationals!. Naw still Stooges!. These people are not stupid there just afraid, no amount of evidence or just plain common sense could prise there minds from there stubborn fear generated belief. Solutions boy solutions!!! It's the solutions thread... . Enjoy yourself, make time for people, learn empathy for others plights, dont worry about possessions there only temporary anyhow, try not to be jealous, understand that being a small part of something big is better than being a big part of something small, build something, anything, use your own hands and ingenuity to create something you'll be surprised how it fills the soul, pick some litter up, go to a cancer hospital and spend some time taking to other people that have been given a life expectancy then learn how they deal with it, smell the flowers in the gardens on the way out and most of all try not to fuck things up worse than they already are!" I believe small acts by individuals can lead to big change.Well said. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"think the only way is to shrink comsumer demand, big corps want big roi in shortest time possible. fast fashion,new mobile phones coming out every second, huge deforestation to meet the demands of mcds and palm oils, fracking polluting chemicals etc, this planet will survive has done for billions of years, compare that to your 80 or 90. man is biggest problem and dodgy deals and short minded greed Can you expand this into a solution? " You are good at asking the right questions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"think the only way is to shrink comsumer demand, big corps want big roi in shortest time possible. fast fashion,new mobile phones coming out every second, huge deforestation to meet the demands of mcds and palm oils, fracking polluting chemicals etc, this planet will survive has done for billions of years, compare that to your 80 or 90. man is biggest problem and dodgy deals and short minded greed Can you expand this into a solution? You are good at asking the right questions." Because i know fuck all about climate change  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They deny that temperatures are up yet have no explanation for retreating glaciers or disappearing sea ice. I once had somebody tell me that back in the 70s they predicted a new ice age and that since then hurricanes and tornadoes are down in number?. I said why don't you try actually reading what the scientists write.. Nah there government Stooges in it for the money. You know most of them are some of the brightest minds we have don't you! And they earn a tiny percentage of what they could earn in the big multinationals!. Naw still Stooges!. These people are not stupid there just afraid, no amount of evidence or just plain common sense could prise there minds from there stubborn fear generated belief. Solutions boy solutions!!! It's the solutions thread... " I tried to suggest some !
But... as I posted, the discussion on here still hinges on bundling it all together ! Hence it should not surprise you that alot of "pie in the sky" "Future" ideal "solutions come up ....but nothing much in the way of what is doable now !
If common sense prevailed over the Climate zealots , a lot more could be done that as a knock on effect would not only improve our lives , but also cater for the "climate Change" brigade !
It has to start with people feeling good about improving their lives and environment!
Instead of making people feel guilty ...or not give a shit as long as they pay for it in taxes or the so called carbon offset programs ( another green wash money making scheme), people should be made to feel as if they contribute positively and feel empowered to take part !
We are talking grass roots level ! But that would imply government and all those "green" money making schemes would loose ..... so it doesn't happen !
As we live in a material world If people felt that helping the enviroment would help keep their wallets full , or at least not empty them ,they would be more pro active!
In Fact most countries Green wash their policies by signing up to all sort of treaties... but in practice do the opposite !
Here is an example :
It makes sense that a new house when built , or rebuilt , would incorporate as many environmental friendly features as possible ! Recycled materials , good insulation and energy efficient design , include rain water capture, solar heating PV etc!
Some of these features will mean bigger up front cost , that would be gradually offset !
But it should also earn a tax benefit that would vary according to the houses environmental rating !
This would be an incentive to all .... but ..... in practice its actually the other way round ! 
As I live in Portugal , I will give you a Portuguese example :
Some years back the labour government created a energy efficiency rating for homes and building at large !
Thus a certified inspector goes though a procedure that in the end rates your home of office building !
Result !!!
If your house has a high efficiency rating (there is a scale for it ) You property market rating goes up ! mmmm...seems good right ?
Problem is so does the tax bracket its associated with !
So in some cases , after energy rating, people were shocked to find themselves paying sometimes 2 to 4 times the property tax they were paying before!
mmmm..... now there is an example of being rewarded for having an environmentally friendly home! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Gentlemen gentlemen.. If you really insist on solving this predicament then I can tell you they've already thought of the best way to tackle it, in fact they had the idea years and years ago!. Its called a carbon cap and trade. It would be done at the global level (the tricky bit) but very simply applied as theres very few oil/gas companies. You simply put a tax on carbon per kilogramme at source when it's extracted One that rises steadily per year at a known rate (no guess work about costs in ten years). This tax would be met by the consumer obviously, the difference being the tax goes back directly to them at the end of each year in the form a cheque from the Exchequer, divided equally to every single person over the age of 18. As the costs rises the consumer looks to cut back on fossil fuel usage because they don't want to pay the increasing tax, those who use the least pay the least but get an equal share back (mmm profit) the consumer then receives the share back and uses it to save next year's increase therefore putting the free market to use in ingenuity, all markets love money, when people have money to spend the market will provide them with solutions to get their grubby little mits on it (every good capitalist and business will be falling over themselves dreaming up new carbon free alternatives). . Or you can kill 6.5 billon people therefore reducing your carbon emissions drastically (but be warned, the science says you'll only speed the process up by removing the sulphate aerosols that civilisations produce and keep a 3 degrees c cooling trend). . Or you can drop everything you do and push full scale into carbon capture again this isn't small or simple basically your looking at the exact reverse of the last 300 years of fossil fuel extraction, where you'll have to suck the trillions and trillions of tonnes of carbon back out of the atmosphere and then find very very deep holes to put it into to stop it leeching back into the environment (alas that's what carbon likes to do). . Ps your all talking about fuel and energy however, about 25% of c02 comes from agriculture, it simply leeches out ploughing soil, then there's the methane caused by animal cultivation, replacing concrete (that's 15% of c02 production) I take it you'll still want concrete for your reactors be they Fusion or fission, then there's the fact that the energy your going to produce, well alot of it will go in to making err heat, well you know that c02 traps heat like and your going to still be making loads albeit from c02 free source. Then there's ships and airlines, electric conversion?. And one last niggling problem, you've yet to decide what to do with the 450 nuclear power stations which are pretty much all located at the water's edge, that's water that's set to rise pretty quickly and then there's the relocation of the world's 4.5 billon people who also live on the edge of the water, that might be energy intensive moving that lot?. . Personally if you really insist on it I'd go with option 1 and cross your fingers and maybe your toes as well "Jesus ! That is a problem ...or the current problem ! It doesn't work !
Are you naive enough to think that your scheme would bring any benefit to the consumer !
What you propose is a nightmare that would only benefit The "climate change" leeches !
As usual the consumer would foot the bill as we already do now!
In short, your solution is to make the existing environmental taxes higher than they are now !
How does the enviroment benefit from that? ..... It doesn't !
mmmmmm... that got me wondering .... do you own carbon market shares ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We need to make it pay £ ! If we could convince everyone they could make Money from Saving the Planet ? The problem would be Solved "Good idea.. But how ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Good post. Global problems require global solutions.If we can get China the usa and europe on board a difference can be made. " Indeed we can Bob ! And its easy regarding Europe Usa and S. America too ! Unfortunately you cant count on China or India ! The environmental awareness there is very limited ! And we all agree that these two have massive populations with a massive impact ! But while both populations also have a very limited notion of their global impact, they are aware of the local impact ! This is one of the reasons I advocate separating Climate change , and environmental clean up ! If you intervene in these two countries by making them aware of the situation they live in , and can relate to , its more likely they will cooperate to improve their surroundings and enviroment ! its the old saying ! "seeing is believing" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We need to make it pay £ ! If we could convince everyone they could make Money from Saving the Planet ? The problem would be Solved Good idea.. But how ?"I think I have given a couple of ways ! on my example of construction on a previous post ! Also reduced import duties (0% if made within the common market) would lower acquisition cost, and 0% vat on solar heating or PV plus install cost could be totally or partially tax deductible !
What do you think ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We need to make it pay £ ! If we could convince everyone they could make Money from Saving the Planet ? The problem would be Solved Good idea.. But how ?
I think I have given a couple of ways !
on my example of construction on a previous post !
Also reduced import duties (0% if made within the common market) would lower acquisition cost, and 0% vat on solar heating or PV plus install cost could be totally or partially tax deductible !
What do you think ? "Incentives like you suggest sound very good. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Good post. Global problems require global solutions.If we can get China the usa and europe on board a difference can be made. Indeed we can Bob ! And its easy regarding Europe Usa and S. America too ! Unfortunately you cant count on China or India ! The environmental awareness there is very limited ! And we all agree that these two have massive populations with a massive impact ! But while both populations also have a very limited notion of their global impact, they are aware of the local impact ! This is one of the reasons I advocate separating Climate change , and environmental clean up ! If you intervene in these two countries by making them aware of the situation they live in , and can relate to , its more likely they will cooperate to improve their surroundings and enviroment ! its the old saying ! "seeing is believing" "Lead by example ,works. I do think that they are begining to change though.The Chinese population are complaining vocally about the pollution the suffer in most cities . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We need to make it pay £ ! If we could convince everyone they could make Money from Saving the Planet ? The problem would be Solved Good idea.. But how ?"I Don't know
Really wish I did ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"india is actually leading the way when it comes to renewables .... just sayin'" I don't believe that ! They dump rubbish all over the place ! My Son has just been there ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"india is actually leading the way when it comes to renewables .... just sayin' I don't believe that ! They dump rubbish all over the place ! My Son has just been there ! " fly tipping is a different topic to renewables | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Good post. Global problems require global solutions.If we can get China the usa and europe on board a difference can be made. Indeed we can Bob ! And its easy regarding Europe Usa and S. America too ! Unfortunately you cant count on China or India ! The environmental awareness there is very limited ! And we all agree that these two have massive populations with a massive impact ! But while both populations also have a very limited notion of their global impact, they are aware of the local impact ! This is one of the reasons I advocate separating Climate change , and environmental clean up ! If you intervene in these two countries by making them aware of the situation they live in , and can relate to , its more likely they will cooperate to improve their surroundings and enviroment ! its the old saying ! "seeing is believing" Lead by example ,works.
I do think that they are begining to change though.The Chinese population are complaining vocally about the pollution the suffer in most cities ."Well... its a start ! But for that to gain critical mass ,it´l take a while! We must not forget that its not a democracy , and the communist party there ,while gradually opening , is not exactly used to descent by the people ! Couple that with endemic corruption , And we are still a long way from decent building codes and standards , or regulation in regards to dumping into rivers and canals! And then... there is the elephant in the room .... hundreds of old coal fired power plants !
Very long way to go ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Gentlemen gentlemen.. If you really insist on solving this predicament then I can tell you they've already thought of the best way to tackle it, in fact they had the idea years and years ago!. Its called a carbon cap and trade. It would be done at the global level (the tricky bit) but very simply applied as theres very few oil/gas companies. You simply put a tax on carbon per kilogramme at source when it's extracted One that rises steadily per year at a known rate (no guess work about costs in ten years). This tax would be met by the consumer obviously, the difference being the tax goes back directly to them at the end of each year in the form a cheque from the Exchequer, divided equally to every single person over the age of 18. As the costs rises the consumer looks to cut back on fossil fuel usage because they don't want to pay the increasing tax, those who use the least pay the least but get an equal share back (mmm profit) the consumer then receives the share back and uses it to save next year's increase therefore putting the free market to use in ingenuity, all markets love money, when people have money to spend the market will provide them with solutions to get their grubby little mits on it (every good capitalist and business will be falling over themselves dreaming up new carbon free alternatives). . Or you can kill 6.5 billon people therefore reducing your carbon emissions drastically (but be warned, the science says you'll only speed the process up by removing the sulphate aerosols that civilisations produce and keep a 3 degrees c cooling trend). . Or you can drop everything you do and push full scale into carbon capture again this isn't small or simple basically your looking at the exact reverse of the last 300 years of fossil fuel extraction, where you'll have to suck the trillions and trillions of tonnes of carbon back out of the atmosphere and then find very very deep holes to put it into to stop it leeching back into the environment (alas that's what carbon likes to do). . Ps your all talking about fuel and energy however, about 25% of c02 comes from agriculture, it simply leeches out ploughing soil, then there's the methane caused by animal cultivation, replacing concrete (that's 15% of c02 production) I take it you'll still want concrete for your reactors be they Fusion or fission, then there's the fact that the energy your going to produce, well alot of it will go in to making err heat, well you know that c02 traps heat like and your going to still be making loads albeit from c02 free source. Then there's ships and airlines, electric conversion?. And one last niggling problem, you've yet to decide what to do with the 450 nuclear power stations which are pretty much all located at the water's edge, that's water that's set to rise pretty quickly and then there's the relocation of the world's 4.5 billon people who also live on the edge of the water, that might be energy intensive moving that lot?. . Personally if you really insist on it I'd go with option 1 and cross your fingers and maybe your toes as well
Jesus !
That is a problem ...or the current problem !
It doesn't work !
Are you naive enough to think that your scheme would bring any benefit to the consumer !
What you propose is a nightmare that would only benefit The "climate change" leeches !
As usual the consumer would foot the bill as we already do now!
In short, your solution is to make the existing environmental taxes higher than they are now !
How does the enviroment benefit from that? ..... It doesn't !
mmmmmm... that got me wondering .... do you own carbon market shares ? ". You couldn't even be bothered to read what I wrote, I dunno I'd like to say your a fuckwit or at very best a halfwit but I actually think your brighter than that, your just living in fear, something I gave up years ago, try it someday | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Gentlemen gentlemen.. If you really insist on solving this predicament then I can tell you they've already thought of the best way to tackle it, in fact they had the idea years and years ago!. Its called a carbon cap and trade. It would be done at the global level (the tricky bit) but very simply applied as theres very few oil/gas companies. You simply put a tax on carbon per kilogramme at source when it's extracted One that rises steadily per year at a known rate (no guess work about costs in ten years). This tax would be met by the consumer obviously, the difference being the tax goes back directly to them at the end of each year in the form a cheque from the Exchequer, divided equally to every single person over the age of 18. As the costs rises the consumer looks to cut back on fossil fuel usage because they don't want to pay the increasing tax, those who use the least pay the least but get an equal share back (mmm profit) the consumer then receives the share back and uses it to save next year's increase therefore putting the free market to use in ingenuity, all markets love money, when people have money to spend the market will provide them with solutions to get their grubby little mits on it (every good capitalist and business will be falling over themselves dreaming up new carbon free alternatives). . Or you can kill 6.5 billon people therefore reducing your carbon emissions drastically (but be warned, the science says you'll only speed the process up by removing the sulphate aerosols that civilisations produce and keep a 3 degrees c cooling trend). . Or you can drop everything you do and push full scale into carbon capture again this isn't small or simple basically your looking at the exact reverse of the last 300 years of fossil fuel extraction, where you'll have to suck the trillions and trillions of tonnes of carbon back out of the atmosphere and then find very very deep holes to put it into to stop it leeching back into the environment (alas that's what carbon likes to do). . Ps your all talking about fuel and energy however, about 25% of c02 comes from agriculture, it simply leeches out ploughing soil, then there's the methane caused by animal cultivation, replacing concrete (that's 15% of c02 production) I take it you'll still want concrete for your reactors be they Fusion or fission, then there's the fact that the energy your going to produce, well alot of it will go in to making err heat, well you know that c02 traps heat like and your going to still be making loads albeit from c02 free source. Then there's ships and airlines, electric conversion?. And one last niggling problem, you've yet to decide what to do with the 450 nuclear power stations which are pretty much all located at the water's edge, that's water that's set to rise pretty quickly and then there's the relocation of the world's 4.5 billon people who also live on the edge of the water, that might be energy intensive moving that lot?. . Personally if you really insist on it I'd go with option 1 and cross your fingers and maybe your toes as well
Jesus !
That is a problem ...or the current problem !
It doesn't work !
Are you naive enough to think that your scheme would bring any benefit to the consumer !
What you propose is a nightmare that would only benefit The "climate change" leeches !
As usual the consumer would foot the bill as we already do now!
In short, your solution is to make the existing environmental taxes higher than they are now !
How does the enviroment benefit from that? ..... It doesn't !
mmmmmm... that got me wondering .... do you own carbon market shares ? .
You couldn't even be bothered to read what I wrote, I dunno I'd like to say your a fuckwit or at very best a halfwit but I actually think your brighter than that, your just living in fear, something I gave up years ago, try it someday"Jesus Sick...boy ! Why are you ruining a decent thread with name calling ? I did read what you wrote ! And I am sorry if you are pissed of because I don't agree with you ! I don't really get what you referring to when you say I´nm living in fear !
So care to explain that ..... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is only one way to solve climate change and that is to reverse population growth. I would think that we could probably live in sustainable balance with the environment with a worldwide population of 3 to 4 billion and still retain and advance our present standard of technology and living while extending it to all." How do you plan to do that,exterminate half of mankind,there must be better ways I think | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Gentlemen gentlemen.. If you really insist on solving this predicament then I can tell you they've already thought of the best way to tackle it, in fact they had the idea years and years ago!. Its called a carbon cap and trade. It would be done at the global level (the tricky bit) but very simply applied as theres very few oil/gas companies. You simply put a tax on carbon per kilogramme at source when it's extracted One that rises steadily per year at a known rate (no guess work about costs in ten years). This tax would be met by the consumer obviously, the difference being the tax goes back directly to them at the end of each year in the form a cheque from the Exchequer, divided equally to every single person over the age of 18. As the costs rises the consumer looks to cut back on fossil fuel usage because they don't want to pay the increasing tax, those who use the least pay the least but get an equal share back (mmm profit) the consumer then receives the share back and uses it to save next year's increase therefore putting the free market to use in ingenuity, all markets love money, when people have money to spend the market will provide them with solutions to get their grubby little mits on it (every good capitalist and business will be falling over themselves dreaming up new carbon free alternatives). . Or you can kill 6.5 billon people therefore reducing your carbon emissions drastically (but be warned, the science says you'll only speed the process up by removing the sulphate aerosols that civilisations produce and keep a 3 degrees c cooling trend). . Or you can drop everything you do and push full scale into carbon capture again this isn't small or simple basically your looking at the exact reverse of the last 300 years of fossil fuel extraction, where you'll have to suck the trillions and trillions of tonnes of carbon back out of the atmosphere and then find very very deep holes to put it into to stop it leeching back into the environment (alas that's what carbon likes to do). . Ps your all talking about fuel and energy however, about 25% of c02 comes from agriculture, it simply leeches out ploughing soil, then there's the methane caused by animal cultivation, replacing concrete (that's 15% of c02 production) I take it you'll still want concrete for your reactors be they Fusion or fission, then there's the fact that the energy your going to produce, well alot of it will go in to making err heat, well you know that c02 traps heat like and your going to still be making loads albeit from c02 free source. Then there's ships and airlines, electric conversion?. And one last niggling problem, you've yet to decide what to do with the 450 nuclear power stations which are pretty much all located at the water's edge, that's water that's set to rise pretty quickly and then there's the relocation of the world's 4.5 billon people who also live on the edge of the water, that might be energy intensive moving that lot?. . Personally if you really insist on it I'd go with option 1 and cross your fingers and maybe your toes as well
Jesus !
That is a problem ...or the current problem !
It doesn't work !
Are you naive enough to think that your scheme would bring any benefit to the consumer !
What you propose is a nightmare that would only benefit The "climate change" leeches !
As usual the consumer would foot the bill as we already do now!
In short, your solution is to make the existing environmental taxes higher than they are now !
How does the enviroment benefit from that? ..... It doesn't !
mmmmmm... that got me wondering .... do you own carbon market shares ? .
You couldn't even be bothered to read what I wrote, I dunno I'd like to say your a fuckwit or at very best a halfwit but I actually think your brighter than that, your just living in fear, something I gave up years ago, try it someday
Jesus Sick...boy !
Why are you ruining a decent thread with name calling ?
I did read what you wrote ! And I am sorry if you are pissed of because I don't agree with you !
I don't really get what you referring to when you say I´nm living in fear !
So care to explain that .....". Because you twisted what I wrote which is everybody gets an equal share back!!!??? To its a tax that the government will screw you over. Its not name calling, your either a fucking idiot who didn't read what I wrote or (which I suspect) somebody living in fear of the truth. Now if you want to argue about the science, go ahead, I'll chew you up and spit you out like the fucking nobody who's read shit all you are but you don't, you just twist shit to suit your fear. That's fine I get that, we're all afraid of death, but please don't twist the words I'm writing to suit your belief, this is exactly why I gave up arguing about climate change | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Gentlemen gentlemen.. If you really insist on solving this predicament then I can tell you they've already thought of the best way to tackle it, in fact they had the idea years and years ago!. Its called a carbon cap and trade. It would be done at the global level (the tricky bit) but very simply applied as theres very few oil/gas companies. You simply put a tax on carbon per kilogramme at source when it's extracted One that rises steadily per year at a known rate (no guess work about costs in ten years). This tax would be met by the consumer obviously, the difference being the tax goes back directly to them at the end of each year in the form a cheque from the Exchequer, divided equally to every single person over the age of 18. As the costs rises the consumer looks to cut back on fossil fuel usage because they don't want to pay the increasing tax, those who use the least pay the least but get an equal share back (mmm profit) the consumer then receives the share back and uses it to save next year's increase therefore putting the free market to use in ingenuity, all markets love money, when people have money to spend the market will provide them with solutions to get their grubby little mits on it (every good capitalist and business will be falling over themselves dreaming up new carbon free alternatives). . Or you can kill 6.5 billon people therefore reducing your carbon emissions drastically (but be warned, the science says you'll only speed the process up by removing the sulphate aerosols that civilisations produce and keep a 3 degrees c cooling trend). . Or you can drop everything you do and push full scale into carbon capture again this isn't small or simple basically your looking at the exact reverse of the last 300 years of fossil fuel extraction, where you'll have to suck the trillions and trillions of tonnes of carbon back out of the atmosphere and then find very very deep holes to put it into to stop it leeching back into the environment (alas that's what carbon likes to do). . Ps your all talking about fuel and energy however, about 25% of c02 comes from agriculture, it simply leeches out ploughing soil, then there's the methane caused by animal cultivation, replacing concrete (that's 15% of c02 production) I take it you'll still want concrete for your reactors be they Fusion or fission, then there's the fact that the energy your going to produce, well alot of it will go in to making err heat, well you know that c02 traps heat like and your going to still be making loads albeit from c02 free source. Then there's ships and airlines, electric conversion?. And one last niggling problem, you've yet to decide what to do with the 450 nuclear power stations which are pretty much all located at the water's edge, that's water that's set to rise pretty quickly and then there's the relocation of the world's 4.5 billon people who also live on the edge of the water, that might be energy intensive moving that lot?. . Personally if you really insist on it I'd go with option 1 and cross your fingers and maybe your toes as well
Jesus !
That is a problem ...or the current problem !
It doesn't work !
Are you naive enough to think that your scheme would bring any benefit to the consumer !
What you propose is a nightmare that would only benefit The "climate change" leeches !
As usual the consumer would foot the bill as we already do now!
In short, your solution is to make the existing environmental taxes higher than they are now !
How does the enviroment benefit from that? ..... It doesn't !
mmmmmm... that got me wondering .... do you own carbon market shares ? .
You couldn't even be bothered to read what I wrote, I dunno I'd like to say your a fuckwit or at very best a halfwit but I actually think your brighter than that, your just living in fear, something I gave up years ago, try it someday
Jesus Sick...boy !
Why are you ruining a decent thread with name calling ?
I did read what you wrote ! And I am sorry if you are pissed of because I don't agree with you !
I don't really get what you referring to when you say I´nm living in fear !
So care to explain that ......
Because you twisted what I wrote which is everybody gets an equal share back!!!???
To its a tax that the government will screw you over.
Its not name calling, your either a fucking idiot who didn't read what I wrote or (which I suspect) somebody living in fear of the truth.
Now if you want to argue about the science, go ahead, I'll chew you up and spit you out like the fucking nobody who's read shit all you are but you don't, you just twist shit to suit your fear.
That's fine I get that, we're all afraid of death, but please don't twist the words I'm writing to suit your belief, this is exactly why I gave up arguing about climate change"Ok ! thanks for clearing that up !
So lets recap :
"Because you twisted what I wrote which is everybody gets an equal share back!!!???"
You really believe that ? power to you !
I don't , and I merely pointed that out, and careful reading bears that out! no distortion needed !
Its your right to be upset when someone disagrees with you !
"To its a tax that the government will screw you over."
I guess you meant "to me"
And yes ... I do think government would screw us over with a tax like that! Track record unfortunately favours my assumption ! I think !
"Its not name calling, your either a fucking idiot who didn't read what I wrote or (which I suspect) somebody living in fear of the truth."
NO... no name calling at all !
"your either a fucking idiot who didn't read what I wrote "
No... no name calling... move along!
"your either a fucking idiot who didn't read what I wrote (which I suspect) somebody living in fear of the truth."
What truth would that be ?
Really ! I am curious ?
Also :
"I'll chew you up and spit you out like the fucking nobody who's read shit all you are but you don't, you just twist shit to suit your fear."
Again ..no name calling , but what have I twisted to suit my fear ? And what fear is that you keep repeating ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think we should be looking into every scientific method to combat everything. So Fusion reactors, renewables and waste disposal and recycling. Which we are doing.. planet wide, quite quickly by the usual standards of change and it's nice to see people power can do it. However I'd like to see all jobs made redundant by scientific progress are replaced with jobs towards assisting the same scientific method towards combating other problems. The more experiments we attempt, the more we learn. The better armed we are to fix the problems we face. So I'm not arguing over method. I believe current pollution and renewables and climate change is being tackled well. But we need to stop destroying anymore of our environment. And crack down on our output. We don't need 5 new phones in ten years.. or pointless plastic. We also don't need as much wood or oil.. unless we can start to break down our waste into elements and reuse what we've already. Think of our planet like a space station. Use what you have wisely. " So this is an interesting problem that i tried to draw attention with in my thread saying GDP was OBSOLETE and needs to be DELETED. As long as a £1 of iphone is valued the same as a £1 if cancer research then it's hard to get powerful people interested in the latter without personal tragedy. Currently VAT is the only tool at our disposal to make an adjustment but 20% won't cut it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They deny that temperatures are up yet have no explanation for retreating glaciers or disappearing sea ice. I once had somebody tell me that back in the 70s they predicted a new ice age and that since then hurricanes and tornadoes are down in number?. I said why don't you try actually reading what the scientists write.. Nah there government Stooges in it for the money. You know most of them are some of the brightest minds we have don't you! And they earn a tiny percentage of what they could earn in the big multinationals!. Naw still Stooges!. These people are not stupid there just afraid, no amount of evidence or just plain common sense could prise there minds from there stubborn fear generated belief. Solutions boy solutions!!! It's the solutions thread... I tried to suggest some !
But... as I posted, the discussion on here still hinges on bundling it all together ! Hence it should not surprise you that alot of "pie in the sky" "Future" ideal "solutions come up ....but nothing much in the way of what is doable now !
If common sense prevailed over the Climate zealots , a lot more could be done that as a knock on effect would not only improve our lives , but also cater for the "climate Change" brigade !
It has to start with people feeling good about improving their lives and environment!
Instead of making people feel guilty ...or not give a shit as long as they pay for it in taxes or the so called carbon offset programs ( another green wash money making scheme), people should be made to feel as if they contribute positively and feel empowered to take part !
We are talking grass roots level ! But that would imply government and all those "green" money making schemes would loose ..... so it doesn't happen !
As we live in a material world If people felt that helping the enviroment would help keep their wallets full , or at least not empty them ,they would be more pro active!
In Fact most countries Green wash their policies by signing up to all sort of treaties... but in practice do the opposite !
Here is an example :
It makes sense that a new house when built , or rebuilt , would incorporate as many environmental friendly features as possible ! Recycled materials , good insulation and energy efficient design , include rain water capture, solar heating PV etc!
Some of these features will mean bigger up front cost , that would be gradually offset !
But it should also earn a tax benefit that would vary according to the houses environmental rating !
This would be an incentive to all .... but ..... in practice its actually the other way round !
As I live in Portugal , I will give you a Portuguese example :
Some years back the labour government created a energy efficiency rating for homes and building at large !
Thus a certified inspector goes though a procedure that in the end rates your home of office building !
Result !!!
If your house has a high efficiency rating (there is a scale for it ) You property market rating goes up ! mmmm...seems good right ?
Problem is so does the tax bracket its associated with !
So in some cases , after energy rating, people were shocked to find themselves paying sometimes 2 to 4 times the property tax they were paying before!
mmmm..... now there is an example of being rewarded for having an environmentally friendly home! "I think there's a very good point in this that deals with the human psychology of the problem space. Whilst pricing things and trading schemes have a lot of merit, there also needs to be a prestige and emotional factor with it. I see the roots of this today but i dont think it's mainstream yet. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Good post. Global problems require global solutions.If we can get China the usa and europe on board a difference can be made. Indeed we can Bob ! And its easy regarding Europe Usa and S. America too ! Unfortunately you cant count on China or India ! The environmental awareness there is very limited ! And we all agree that these two have massive populations with a massive impact ! But while both populations also have a very limited notion of their global impact, they are aware of the local impact ! This is one of the reasons I advocate separating Climate change , and environmental clean up ! If you intervene in these two countries by making them aware of the situation they live in , and can relate to , its more likely they will cooperate to improve their surroundings and enviroment ! its the old saying ! "seeing is believing" Lead by example ,works.
I do think that they are begining to change though.The Chinese population are complaining vocally about the pollution the suffer in most cities .
Well... its a start ! But for that to gain critical mass ,it´l take a while! We must not forget that its not a democracy , and the communist party there ,while gradually opening , is not exactly used to descent by the people ! Couple that with endemic corruption , And we are still a long way from decent building codes and standards , or regulation in regards to dumping into rivers and canals!
And then... there is the elephant in the room .... hundreds of old coal fired power plants !
Very long way to go ! "Sorry but your analysis is way off here. Climate change is a massive issue in China. Mainly because it's such a big country that all the environmental damage happens actually shows up in it's borders. Unlike the northern hemisphere who deny the problem because the effects devastate the southern. There's a saying chinese that goes along the lines of "the rich can send their kids to better schools and they can eat in better restaurants, but we all breathe the same air". I forget the exact number but a massive proportion of beijing children have breathing problems. The communist party lives there so believe me when i say they are fucked off with it and doing lots about it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Good post. Global problems require global solutions.If we can get China the usa and europe on board a difference can be made. Indeed we can Bob ! And its easy regarding Europe Usa and S. America too ! Unfortunately you cant count on China or India ! The environmental awareness there is very limited ! And we all agree that these two have massive populations with a massive impact ! But while both populations also have a very limited notion of their global impact, they are aware of the local impact ! This is one of the reasons I advocate separating Climate change , and environmental clean up ! If you intervene in these two countries by making them aware of the situation they live in , and can relate to , its more likely they will cooperate to improve their surroundings and enviroment ! its the old saying ! "seeing is believing" Lead by example ,works.
I do think that they are begining to change though.The Chinese population are complaining vocally about the pollution the suffer in most cities .
Well... its a start ! But for that to gain critical mass ,it´l take a while! We must not forget that its not a democracy , and the communist party there ,while gradually opening , is not exactly used to descent by the people ! Couple that with endemic corruption , And we are still a long way from decent building codes and standards , or regulation in regards to dumping into rivers and canals!
And then... there is the elephant in the room .... hundreds of old coal fired power plants !
Very long way to go !
Sorry but your analysis is way off here. Climate change is a massive issue in China. Mainly because it's such a big country that all the environmental damage happens actually shows up in it's borders. Unlike the northern hemisphere who deny the problem because the effects devastate the southern.
There's a saying chinese that goes along the lines of "the rich can send their kids to better schools and they can eat in better restaurants, but we all breathe the same air". I forget the exact number but a massive proportion of beijing children have breathing problems. The communist party lives there so believe me when i say they are fucked off with it and doing lots about it. "They "might" be doing something about it, but Just a centralised decision wont do it ! "Sorry but your analysis is way off here. Climate change is a massive issue in China. Mainly because it's such a big country that all the environmental damage happens actually shows up in it's borders." Don get what you mean by that ! Chinese environmental problems are overwhelmingly caused by them selves ,not others ! Rapid and wild industrialisation at any cost, no environmental regulation to speak of, energy based mainly on coal ! None else is responsible for that ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Gentlemen gentlemen.. If you really insist on solving this predicament then I can tell you they've already thought of the best way to tackle it, in fact they had the idea years and years ago!. Its called a carbon cap and trade. It would be done at the global level (the tricky bit) but very simply applied as theres very few oil/gas companies. You simply put a tax on carbon per kilogramme at source when it's extracted One that rises steadily per year at a known rate (no guess work about costs in ten years). This tax would be met by the consumer obviously, the difference being the tax goes back directly to them at the end of each year in the form a cheque from the Exchequer, divided equally to every single person over the age of 18. As the costs rises the consumer looks to cut back on fossil fuel usage because they don't want to pay the increasing tax, those who use the least pay the least but get an equal share back (mmm profit) the consumer then receives the share back and uses it to save next year's increase therefore putting the free market to use in ingenuity, all markets love money, when people have money to spend the market will provide them with solutions to get their grubby little mits on it (every good capitalist and business will be falling over themselves dreaming up new carbon free alternatives). . Or you can kill 6.5 billon people therefore reducing your carbon emissions drastically (but be warned, the science says you'll only speed the process up by removing the sulphate aerosols that civilisations produce and keep a 3 degrees c cooling trend). . Or you can drop everything you do and push full scale into carbon capture again this isn't small or simple basically your looking at the exact reverse of the last 300 years of fossil fuel extraction, where you'll have to suck the trillions and trillions of tonnes of carbon back out of the atmosphere and then find very very deep holes to put it into to stop it leeching back into the environment (alas that's what carbon likes to do). . Ps your all talking about fuel and energy however, about 25% of c02 comes from agriculture, it simply leeches out ploughing soil, then there's the methane caused by animal cultivation, replacing concrete (that's 15% of c02 production) I take it you'll still want concrete for your reactors be they Fusion or fission, then there's the fact that the energy your going to produce, well alot of it will go in to making err heat, well you know that c02 traps heat like and your going to still be making loads albeit from c02 free source. Then there's ships and airlines, electric conversion?. And one last niggling problem, you've yet to decide what to do with the 450 nuclear power stations which are pretty much all located at the water's edge, that's water that's set to rise pretty quickly and then there's the relocation of the world's 4.5 billon people who also live on the edge of the water, that might be energy intensive moving that lot?. . Personally if you really insist on it I'd go with option 1 and cross your fingers and maybe your toes as well
Jesus !
That is a problem ...or the current problem !
It doesn't work !
Are you naive enough to think that your scheme would bring any benefit to the consumer !
What you propose is a nightmare that would only benefit The "climate change" leeches !
As usual the consumer would foot the bill as we already do now!
In short, your solution is to make the existing environmental taxes higher than they are now !
How does the enviroment benefit from that? ..... It doesn't !
mmmmmm... that got me wondering .... do you own carbon market shares ? .
You couldn't even be bothered to read what I wrote, I dunno I'd like to say your a fuckwit or at very best a halfwit but I actually think your brighter than that, your just living in fear, something I gave up years ago, try it someday
Jesus Sick...boy !
Why are you ruining a decent thread with name calling ?
I did read what you wrote ! And I am sorry if you are pissed of because I don't agree with you !
I don't really get what you referring to when you say I´nm living in fear !
So care to explain that ......
Because you twisted what I wrote which is everybody gets an equal share back!!!???
To its a tax that the government will screw you over.
Its not name calling, your either a fucking idiot who didn't read what I wrote or (which I suspect) somebody living in fear of the truth.
Now if you want to argue about the science, go ahead, I'll chew you up and spit you out like the fucking nobody who's read shit all you are but you don't, you just twist shit to suit your fear.
That's fine I get that, we're all afraid of death, but please don't twist the words I'm writing to suit your belief, this is exactly why I gave up arguing about climate change
Ok ! thanks for clearing that up !
So lets recap :
"Because you twisted what I wrote which is everybody gets an equal share back!!!???"
You really believe that ? power to you !
I don't , and I merely pointed that out, and careful reading bears that out! no distortion needed !
Its your right to be upset when someone disagrees with you !
"To its a tax that the government will screw you over."
I guess you meant "to me"
And yes ... I do think government would screw us over with a tax like that! Track record unfortunately favours my assumption ! I think !
"Its not name calling, your either a fucking idiot who didn't read what I wrote or (which I suspect) somebody living in fear of the truth."
NO... no name calling at all !
"your either a fucking idiot who didn't read what I wrote "
No... no name calling... move along!
"your either a fucking idiot who didn't read what I wrote (which I suspect) somebody living in fear of the truth."
What truth would that be ?
Really ! I am curious ?
Also :
"I'll chew you up and spit you out like the fucking nobody who's read shit all you are but you don't, you just twist shit to suit your fear."
Again ..no name calling , but what have I twisted to suit my fear ? And what fear is that you keep repeating ? ". Argue science, most of the stuff you repeat is utterly bollocks,I just can't be botherd correcting you, now opinions are totally different,I like your opinions, that's a thought you personally have dreamt up, everybody should have opinions, its what makes meeting people great... However Don't confuse your opinion with science, you do it constantly "climate changes" "pollutants" "fossil fuels are harmless" "alarmists".. Honestly your like somebody who's never read a scientific paper in your life and if you did, your deny them as closed minded government Stooges, the only people who do this are people living in fear, your so afraid of the answer you'll say any old bollocks, your not alone, most of these fuckers on here are just the same, they've just got a little more education than you to repeat the crap you come out with | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try not to get involved in arguments over climate change anymore, it was my new year's resolution .
But I'll have a go seen as I'm d*unk .
Your using pollutants totally out of context, anything can be a pollutant regardless of whether its good or bad in one percentage or another, like water is good for you in the right amount, but drink ten gallons and its bad for you, at that point it's a pollutant yes?.
C02 is the main driver of man made climate change, spectrum analysis in the stratosphere measures which wave length is escaping and which isn't, funnily enough when you do this it turns out that the wave length at c02 is the one not escaping into space, so we know it's c02 that's causing the trapped heat, the basic mechanism of c02 trapping long wave radiation was done by a guy called Tyndall in the 1850s this isn't new science!.
Methane oxidises in the atmosphere to create c02 and H20
Water vapour is in itself a greenhouse gas, the more energy trapped in the atmosphere allows more water vapour, more water vapour traps more energy and so on and so on.
Nobody ever denied that climate changes naturally?, in fact we know most of what we know about it from studying climate change
100,000 year cycles from changes in the orbit,25,000 year cycles from the wobbles around the axis, solar output variances..
Of course the naturally occurring climate change happens over these extremely long cycles like the one were currently in the inter glacial period 12,000 years ago, or before that the ice age which was 2 million years old.
Life evolves given time?
However theres a big fucking jump to just say life will adapt to a six degree swing over a 50 year period (the difference between the ice age and today is about 6 degrees).
The earth is warming
Glaciers are melting
The artic sea ice is almost gone
Complex life will die shortly after its habitat goes from not being able to evolve in a 50 year window.
180 species a day goes extinct, its just our turn
I am with you on not getting involved in "climate change " arguments !
So keeping it as light as possible ....
" The earth is warming
Glaciers are melting"
Yes... there is a reason we are in an "inter glacial period " so there is no surprise there !
"The artic sea ice is almost gone"
That has its benefits as well ! But its not as bad as that !
"Complex life will die shortly after its habitat goes from not being able to evolve in a 50 year window."
That is a great exaggeration !
Can you actually provide some evidence for your claims?
The general models show that increased Methane, CO2, nitrogen and sulphur oxide levels which we are increasing through our industrial activities will eventually lead to increased ocean acidification (ruining global and local fishing stocks), it could well lead to warming, which would dump freshwater into many of the Ocean conveyor systems - this would lead to a brief period of increased warming, with flooding and storm surges, followed with a shut down of warm ocean currents which would, in turn, lead to sub arctic conditions. This would ruin european and north east america's agricultural harvests.
I mean I'd love to see the the chemistry, biology, and oceanographic research which backs up your claims.
Too much and too complex to put on here, so trying to keep it lite !
The complex catastrophe you describing has already happened before , and man had no intervention in it !
It was called the little ice age !
It lasted between the 14th century to the mid 19th century !
It was preceded by the Medieval warming period that took place between late 9th century to the 14th century !
Back then there was no oil or coal industry releasing all that bad Co2 and other gases into the atmosphere !
So this proves that these extreme changes occur without any human intervention !
Can we have an effect ? Sure... but a minor one at best!
Now.... having said that , I am referring to climate !
Us polluting, and wrecking our enviroment, that is a separate issue that needs to be dealt with !
But it can only be done successfully, if we sever the link to the "climate change" fanatics ...and business interests !
I am talking about not dumping all manner of shit into rivers , allowing nature to recover its natural balance, avoiding landfill dumps , by recycling .
Also exploring and using methane from existing landfill sites !
Better forest and other resource management !
Just to mention a few !"Just seen this. The medieval warming period 9AD-14AD you described was correlated to methane 'belching' from Siberian peat bogs - research put this down to either a small asteroid impact igniting peat, or a forest fire igniting the peat. Either would warm up the permafrost and release methane. 13-16AD there actually wasn't a little 'Ice age' as you put it, the several centuries of slightly warmer temperature induced by localised methane belching just simply wore off - people were not used to the slightly decreased temperature and lower crop yields.The late 1300's to 1500's did see and increased amount of storm events though, although, this was due to lower temperatures, though it was not particularly cold, just wet. the late 1600's-1800's did see a mini Ice age though, however this is put down to an increase in volcanic activity in the Pacific rim of fire, and in the Antarctic at the earlier dates, at the eruption of Krakatoa later on. Increased volcanic ash in the atmosphere reflected heat energy back into the outer atmosphere leading the gradual global cooling on an international level. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Gentlemen gentlemen.. If you really insist on solving this predicament then I can tell you they've already thought of the best way to tackle it, in fact they had the idea years and years ago!. Its called a carbon cap and trade. It would be done at the global level (the tricky bit) but very simply applied as theres very few oil/gas companies. You simply put a tax on carbon per kilogramme at source when it's extracted One that rises steadily per year at a known rate (no guess work about costs in ten years). This tax would be met by the consumer obviously, the difference being the tax goes back directly to them at the end of each year in the form a cheque from the Exchequer, divided equally to every single person over the age of 18. As the costs rises the consumer looks to cut back on fossil fuel usage because they don't want to pay the increasing tax, those who use the least pay the least but get an equal share back (mmm profit) the consumer then receives the share back and uses it to save next year's increase therefore putting the free market to use in ingenuity, all markets love money, when people have money to spend the market will provide them with solutions to get their grubby little mits on it (every good capitalist and business will be falling over themselves dreaming up new carbon free alternatives). . Or you can kill 6.5 billon people therefore reducing your carbon emissions drastically (but be warned, the science says you'll only speed the process up by removing the sulphate aerosols that civilisations produce and keep a 3 degrees c cooling trend). . Or you can drop everything you do and push full scale into carbon capture again this isn't small or simple basically your looking at the exact reverse of the last 300 years of fossil fuel extraction, where you'll have to suck the trillions and trillions of tonnes of carbon back out of the atmosphere and then find very very deep holes to put it into to stop it leeching back into the environment (alas that's what carbon likes to do). . Ps your all talking about fuel and energy however, about 25% of c02 comes from agriculture, it simply leeches out ploughing soil, then there's the methane caused by animal cultivation, replacing concrete (that's 15% of c02 production) I take it you'll still want concrete for your reactors be they Fusion or fission, then there's the fact that the energy your going to produce, well alot of it will go in to making err heat, well you know that c02 traps heat like and your going to still be making loads albeit from c02 free source. Then there's ships and airlines, electric conversion?. And one last niggling problem, you've yet to decide what to do with the 450 nuclear power stations which are pretty much all located at the water's edge, that's water that's set to rise pretty quickly and then there's the relocation of the world's 4.5 billon people who also live on the edge of the water, that might be energy intensive moving that lot?. . Personally if you really insist on it I'd go with option 1 and cross your fingers and maybe your toes as well
Jesus !
That is a problem ...or the current problem !
It doesn't work !
Are you naive enough to think that your scheme would bring any benefit to the consumer !
What you propose is a nightmare that would only benefit The "climate change" leeches !
As usual the consumer would foot the bill as we already do now!
In short, your solution is to make the existing environmental taxes higher than they are now !
How does the enviroment benefit from that? ..... It doesn't !
mmmmmm... that got me wondering .... do you own carbon market shares ? .
You couldn't even be bothered to read what I wrote, I dunno I'd like to say your a fuckwit or at very best a halfwit but I actually think your brighter than that, your just living in fear, something I gave up years ago, try it someday
Jesus Sick...boy !
Why are you ruining a decent thread with name calling ?
I did read what you wrote ! And I am sorry if you are pissed of because I don't agree with you !
I don't really get what you referring to when you say I´nm living in fear !
So care to explain that ......
Because you twisted what I wrote which is everybody gets an equal share back!!!???
To its a tax that the government will screw you over.
Its not name calling, your either a fucking idiot who didn't read what I wrote or (which I suspect) somebody living in fear of the truth.
Now if you want to argue about the science, go ahead, I'll chew you up and spit you out like the fucking nobody who's read shit all you are but you don't, you just twist shit to suit your fear.
That's fine I get that, we're all afraid of death, but please don't twist the words I'm writing to suit your belief, this is exactly why I gave up arguing about climate change
Ok ! thanks for clearing that up !
So lets recap :
"Because you twisted what I wrote which is everybody gets an equal share back!!!???"
You really believe that ? power to you !
I don't , and I merely pointed that out, and careful reading bears that out! no distortion needed !
Its your right to be upset when someone disagrees with you !
"To its a tax that the government will screw you over."
I guess you meant "to me"
And yes ... I do think government would screw us over with a tax like that! Track record unfortunately favours my assumption ! I think !
"Its not name calling, your either a fucking idiot who didn't read what I wrote or (which I suspect) somebody living in fear of the truth."
NO... no name calling at all !
"your either a fucking idiot who didn't read what I wrote "
No... no name calling... move along!
"your either a fucking idiot who didn't read what I wrote (which I suspect) somebody living in fear of the truth."
What truth would that be ?
Really ! I am curious ?
Also :
"I'll chew you up and spit you out like the fucking nobody who's read shit all you are but you don't, you just twist shit to suit your fear."
Again ..no name calling , but what have I twisted to suit my fear ? And what fear is that you keep repeating ? .
Argue science, most of the stuff you repeat is utterly bollocks,I just can't be botherd correcting you, now opinions are totally different,I like your opinions, that's a thought you personally have dreamt up, everybody should have opinions, its what makes meeting people great... However
Don't confuse your opinion with science, you do it constantly "climate changes" "pollutants" "fossil fuels are harmless" "alarmists"..
Honestly your like somebody who's never read a scientific paper in your life and if you did, your deny them as closed minded government Stooges, the only people who do this are people living in fear, your so afraid of the answer you'll say any old bollocks, your not alone, most of these fuckers on here are just the same, they've just got a little more education than you to repeat the crap you come out with"Lol.... now you "assume " about my education , my "fear" and worse... you starting to remind me of another poster on anther thread that posts BS then tries to pass it off as if you said it !
But not content to demean me you suggest: " your not alone, most of these fuckers on here are just the same, they've just got a little more education than you to repeat the crap you come out with" So that is how you view your fellow posters ?
Well done ! Oh no name calling there either ! right ?
So ... its ironic that all other uneducated ignorant posters on here are trying in a constructive way , to discuss an important matter, but its you mr. Superior knowledge , that feels the need to show you superior intellect and education , by calling us names ?
Wow Pieces.... I would say you are tearing your tearing you reputation to "pieces" ...lol.... pun intended !
On the other hand ...It might be a Freudian lapse.. and you´re projecting !
But then maybe you are just being a Piece of..... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
that's just too fucked up chap | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try not to get involved in arguments over climate change anymore, it was my new year's resolution .
But I'll have a go seen as I'm d*unk .
Your using pollutants totally out of context, anything can be a pollutant regardless of whether its good or bad in one percentage or another, like water is good for you in the right amount, but drink ten gallons and its bad for you, at that point it's a pollutant yes?.
C02 is the main driver of man made climate change, spectrum analysis in the stratosphere measures which wave length is escaping and which isn't, funnily enough when you do this it turns out that the wave length at c02 is the one not escaping into space, so we know it's c02 that's causing the trapped heat, the basic mechanism of c02 trapping long wave radiation was done by a guy called Tyndall in the 1850s this isn't new science!.
Methane oxidises in the atmosphere to create c02 and H20
Water vapour is in itself a greenhouse gas, the more energy trapped in the atmosphere allows more water vapour, more water vapour traps more energy and so on and so on.
Nobody ever denied that climate changes naturally?, in fact we know most of what we know about it from studying climate change
100,000 year cycles from changes in the orbit,25,000 year cycles from the wobbles around the axis, solar output variances..
Of course the naturally occurring climate change happens over these extremely long cycles like the one were currently in the inter glacial period 12,000 years ago, or before that the ice age which was 2 million years old.
Life evolves given time?
However theres a big fucking jump to just say life will adapt to a six degree swing over a 50 year period (the difference between the ice age and today is about 6 degrees).
The earth is warming
Glaciers are melting
The artic sea ice is almost gone
Complex life will die shortly after its habitat goes from not being able to evolve in a 50 year window.
180 species a day goes extinct, its just our turn
I am with you on not getting involved in "climate change " arguments !
So keeping it as light as possible ....
" The earth is warming
Glaciers are melting"
Yes... there is a reason we are in an "inter glacial period " so there is no surprise there !
"The artic sea ice is almost gone"
That has its benefits as well ! But its not as bad as that !
"Complex life will die shortly after its habitat goes from not being able to evolve in a 50 year window."
That is a great exaggeration !
Can you actually provide some evidence for your claims?
The general models show that increased Methane, CO2, nitrogen and sulphur oxide levels which we are increasing through our industrial activities will eventually lead to increased ocean acidification (ruining global and local fishing stocks), it could well lead to warming, which would dump freshwater into many of the Ocean conveyor systems - this would lead to a brief period of increased warming, with flooding and storm surges, followed with a shut down of warm ocean currents which would, in turn, lead to sub arctic conditions. This would ruin european and north east america's agricultural harvests.
I mean I'd love to see the the chemistry, biology, and oceanographic research which backs up your claims.
Too much and too complex to put on here, so trying to keep it lite !
The complex catastrophe you describing has already happened before , and man had no intervention in it !
It was called the little ice age !
It lasted between the 14th century to the mid 19th century !
It was preceded by the Medieval warming period that took place between late 9th century to the 14th century !
Back then there was no oil or coal industry releasing all that bad Co2 and other gases into the atmosphere !
So this proves that these extreme changes occur without any human intervention !
Can we have an effect ? Sure... but a minor one at best!
Now.... having said that , I am referring to climate !
Us polluting, and wrecking our enviroment, that is a separate issue that needs to be dealt with !
But it can only be done successfully, if we sever the link to the "climate change" fanatics ...and business interests !
I am talking about not dumping all manner of shit into rivers , allowing nature to recover its natural balance, avoiding landfill dumps , by recycling .
Also exploring and using methane from existing landfill sites !
Better forest and other resource management !
Just to mention a few !
Just seen this.
The medieval warming period 9AD-14AD you described was correlated to methane 'belching' from Siberian peat bogs - research put this down to either a small asteroid impact igniting peat, or a forest fire igniting the peat. Either would warm up the permafrost and release methane.
13-16AD there actually wasn't a little 'Ice age' as you put it, the several centuries of slightly warmer temperature induced by localised methane belching just simply wore off - people were not used to the slightly decreased temperature and lower crop yields.The late 1300's to 1500's did see and increased amount of storm events though, although, this was due to lower temperatures, though it was not particularly cold, just wet.
the late 1600's-1800's did see a mini Ice age though, however this is put down to an increase in volcanic activity in the Pacific rim of fire, and in the Antarctic at the earlier dates, at the eruption of Krakatoa later on. Increased volcanic ash in the atmosphere reflected heat energy back into the outer atmosphere leading the gradual global cooling on an international level. "
Glad to see people actually seeking out the info !
for me , you mentioned something I hadnt touched on yet !
While we are spending billions trying to limit emissions , all it takes is for some of the more active volcanoes to get nasty ! They have the ability to put more shit in the atmosphere in a week then we produce in a year !
This shows how human impact is dwarfed by the power of nature !
Having said that, it doesn't mean we shouldn't do our best to put less shit into the atmosphere !
But in the end .... Man´s impact is by comparison ... small ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"why have you quoted sick-boy and then had a go at me about sick-boy's post??!?
that's just too fucked up chap "OOOPs ! I did indeed !
Please accept my apology ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Good post. Global problems require global solutions.If we can get China the usa and europe on board a difference can be made. Indeed we can Bob ! And its easy regarding Europe Usa and S. America too ! Unfortunately you cant count on China or India ! The environmental awareness there is very limited ! And we all agree that these two have massive populations with a massive impact ! But while both populations also have a very limited notion of their global impact, they are aware of the local impact ! This is one of the reasons I advocate separating Climate change , and environmental clean up ! If you intervene in these two countries by making them aware of the situation they live in , and can relate to , its more likely they will cooperate to improve their surroundings and enviroment ! its the old saying ! "seeing is believing" Lead by example ,works.
I do think that they are begining to change though.The Chinese population are complaining vocally about the pollution the suffer in most cities .
Well... its a start ! But for that to gain critical mass ,it´l take a while! We must not forget that its not a democracy , and the communist party there ,while gradually opening , is not exactly used to descent by the people ! Couple that with endemic corruption , And we are still a long way from decent building codes and standards , or regulation in regards to dumping into rivers and canals!
And then... there is the elephant in the room .... hundreds of old coal fired power plants !
Very long way to go !
Sorry but your analysis is way off here. Climate change is a massive issue in China. Mainly because it's such a big country that all the environmental damage happens actually shows up in it's borders. Unlike the northern hemisphere who deny the problem because the effects devastate the southern.
There's a saying chinese that goes along the lines of "the rich can send their kids to better schools and they can eat in better restaurants, but we all breathe the same air". I forget the exact number but a massive proportion of beijing children have breathing problems. The communist party lives there so believe me when i say they are fucked off with it and doing lots about it.
They "might" be doing something about it, but Just a centralised decision wont do it !
"Sorry but your analysis is way off here. Climate change is a massive issue in China. Mainly because it's such a big country that all the environmental damage happens actually shows up in it's borders."
Don get what you mean by that !
Chinese environmental problems are overwhelmingly caused by them selves ,not others !
Rapid and wild industrialisation at any cost, no environmental regulation to speak of, energy based mainly on coal !
None else is responsible for that !"I'm not suggesting they aren't. I'm saying, contrast that with other countries who don't suffer the direct consequences of their own environmental bad practices. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"you're going to have to grovel .... big time!! " Lol... lets not overdo it!
It wouldn't be the first time... and probably not he last we have crossed swords ..so to speak.... but its wrong and not merited THIS time !
But I have no problem owning up to my screw up !
So my humble apology to you, and and other posters .... except the appropriately named Sick guy... mm sorry BOY ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Gentlemen gentlemen.. If you really insist on solving this predicament then I can tell you they've already thought of the best way to tackle it, in fact they had the idea years and years ago!. Its called a carbon cap and trade. It would be done at the global level (the tricky bit) but very simply applied as theres very few oil/gas companies. You simply put a tax on carbon per kilogramme at source when it's extracted One that rises steadily per year at a known rate (no guess work about costs in ten years). This tax would be met by the consumer obviously, the difference being the tax goes back directly to them at the end of each year in the form a cheque from the Exchequer, divided equally to every single person over the age of 18. As the costs rises the consumer looks to cut back on fossil fuel usage because they don't want to pay the increasing tax, those who use the least pay the least but get an equal share back (mmm profit) the consumer then receives the share back and uses it to save next year's increase therefore putting the free market to use in ingenuity, all markets love money, when people have money to spend the market will provide them with solutions to get their grubby little mits on it (every good capitalist and business will be falling over themselves dreaming up new carbon free alternatives). . Or you can kill 6.5 billon people therefore reducing your carbon emissions drastically (but be warned, the science says you'll only speed the process up by removing the sulphate aerosols that civilisations produce and keep a 3 degrees c cooling trend). . Or you can drop everything you do and push full scale into carbon capture again this isn't small or simple basically your looking at the exact reverse of the last 300 years of fossil fuel extraction, where you'll have to suck the trillions and trillions of tonnes of carbon back out of the atmosphere and then find very very deep holes to put it into to stop it leeching back into the environment (alas that's what carbon likes to do). . Ps your all talking about fuel and energy however, about 25% of c02 comes from agriculture, it simply leeches out ploughing soil, then there's the methane caused by animal cultivation, replacing concrete (that's 15% of c02 production) I take it you'll still want concrete for your reactors be they Fusion or fission, then there's the fact that the energy your going to produce, well alot of it will go in to making err heat, well you know that c02 traps heat like and your going to still be making loads albeit from c02 free source. Then there's ships and airlines, electric conversion?. And one last niggling problem, you've yet to decide what to do with the 450 nuclear power stations which are pretty much all located at the water's edge, that's water that's set to rise pretty quickly and then there's the relocation of the world's 4.5 billon people who also live on the edge of the water, that might be energy intensive moving that lot?. . Personally if you really insist on it I'd go with option 1 and cross your fingers and maybe your toes as well
Jesus !
That is a problem ...or the current problem !
It doesn't work !
Are you naive enough to think that your scheme would bring any benefit to the consumer !
What you propose is a nightmare that would only benefit The "climate change" leeches !
As usual the consumer would foot the bill as we already do now!
In short, your solution is to make the existing environmental taxes higher than they are now !
How does the enviroment benefit from that? ..... It doesn't !
mmmmmm... that got me wondering .... do you own carbon market shares ? .
You couldn't even be bothered to read what I wrote, I dunno I'd like to say your a fuckwit or at very best a halfwit but I actually think your brighter than that, your just living in fear, something I gave up years ago, try it someday
Jesus Sick...boy !
Why are you ruining a decent thread with name calling ?
I did read what you wrote ! And I am sorry if you are pissed of because I don't agree with you !
I don't really get what you referring to when you say I´nm living in fear !
So care to explain that ......
Because you twisted what I wrote which is everybody gets an equal share back!!!???
To its a tax that the government will screw you over.
Its not name calling, your either a fucking idiot who didn't read what I wrote or (which I suspect) somebody living in fear of the truth.
Now if you want to argue about the science, go ahead, I'll chew you up and spit you out like the fucking nobody who's read shit all you are but you don't, you just twist shit to suit your fear.
That's fine I get that, we're all afraid of death, but please don't twist the words I'm writing to suit your belief, this is exactly why I gave up arguing about climate change
Ok ! thanks for clearing that up !
So lets recap :
"Because you twisted what I wrote which is everybody gets an equal share back!!!???"
You really believe that ? power to you !
I don't , and I merely pointed that out, and careful reading bears that out! no distortion needed !
Its your right to be upset when someone disagrees with you !
"To its a tax that the government will screw you over."
I guess you meant "to me"
And yes ... I do think government would screw us over with a tax like that! Track record unfortunately favours my assumption ! I think !
"Its not name calling, your either a fucking idiot who didn't read what I wrote or (which I suspect) somebody living in fear of the truth."
NO... no name calling at all !
"your either a fucking idiot who didn't read what I wrote "
No... no name calling... move along!
"your either a fucking idiot who didn't read what I wrote (which I suspect) somebody living in fear of the truth."
What truth would that be ?
Really ! I am curious ?
Also :
"I'll chew you up and spit you out like the fucking nobody who's read shit all you are but you don't, you just twist shit to suit your fear."
Again ..no name calling , but what have I twisted to suit my fear ? And what fear is that you keep repeating ? .
Argue science, most of the stuff you repeat is utterly bollocks,I just can't be botherd correcting you, now opinions are totally different,I like your opinions, that's a thought you personally have dreamt up, everybody should have opinions, its what makes meeting people great... However
Don't confuse your opinion with science, you do it constantly "climate changes" "pollutants" "fossil fuels are harmless" "alarmists"..
Honestly your like somebody who's never read a scientific paper in your life and if you did, your deny them as closed minded government Stooges, the only people who do this are people living in fear, your so afraid of the answer you'll say any old bollocks, your not alone, most of these fuckers on here are just the same, they've just got a little more education than you to repeat the crap you come out with
Lol.... now you "assume " about my education , my "fear" and worse... you starting to remind me of another poster on anther thread that posts BS then tries to pass it off as if you said it !
But not content to demean me you suggest: " your not alone, most of these fuckers on here are just the same, they've just got a little more education than you to repeat the crap you come out with" So that is how you view your fellow posters ?
Well done ! Oh no name calling there either ! right ?
So ... its ironic that all other uneducated ignorant posters on here are trying in a constructive way , to discuss an important matter, but its you mr. Superior knowledge , that feels the need to show you superior intellect and education , by calling us names ?
Wow Pieces.... I would say you are tearing your tearing you reputation to "pieces" ...lol.... pun intended !
On the other hand ...It might be a Freudian lapse.. and you´re projecting !
But then maybe you are just being a Piece of.....". Read what I actually write you might learn something, if you want to troll me expect to be trolled back and don't cry about it life's a two way steak. If you want to ACTUALLY add something like you claim then ACTUALLY add something and not just utter bollocks that you've read on a website or just made up off the top of your head, if you don't know anything about the subject which you clearly don't just listen to what people like me (somebody who's actually spent twenty fucking years reading about it) has to say | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" While we are spending billions trying to limit emissions , all it takes is for some of the more active volcanoes to get nasty ! They have the ability to put more shit in the atmosphere in a week then we produce in a year ! This shows how human impact is dwarfed by the power of nature ! Having said that, it doesn't mean we shouldn't do our best to put less shit into the atmosphere ! But in the end .... Man´s impact is by comparison ... small ! " . See this sort of fucking nonsense gets on my tits, you've read this and not researched it one little bit, and you bang on constantly about researching evidence .. Well fucking do some! Start at how much c02 the world produces a year (I'll give you a clue its about one million kilogrammes a second). And then look at a volcanoes emissions (I'll give you another clue... Its fucking no where near you Wally). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Gentlemen gentlemen.. If you really insist on solving this predicament then I can tell you they've already thought of the best way to tackle it, in fact they had the idea years and years ago!. Its called a carbon cap and trade. It would be done at the global level (the tricky bit) but very simply applied as theres very few oil/gas companies. You simply put a tax on carbon per kilogramme at source when it's extracted One that rises steadily per year at a known rate (no guess work about costs in ten years). This tax would be met by the consumer obviously, the difference being the tax goes back directly to them at the end of each year in the form a cheque from the Exchequer, divided equally to every single person over the age of 18. As the costs rises the consumer looks to cut back on fossil fuel usage because they don't want to pay the increasing tax, those who use the least pay the least but get an equal share back (mmm profit) the consumer then receives the share back and uses it to save next year's increase therefore putting the free market to use in ingenuity, all markets love money, when people have money to spend the market will provide them with solutions to get their grubby little mits on it (every good capitalist and business will be falling over themselves dreaming up new carbon free alternatives). . Or you can kill 6.5 billon people therefore reducing your carbon emissions drastically (but be warned, the science says you'll only speed the process up by removing the sulphate aerosols that civilisations produce and keep a 3 degrees c cooling trend). . Or you can drop everything you do and push full scale into carbon capture again this isn't small or simple basically your looking at the exact reverse of the last 300 years of fossil fuel extraction, where you'll have to suck the trillions and trillions of tonnes of carbon back out of the atmosphere and then find very very deep holes to put it into to stop it leeching back into the environment (alas that's what carbon likes to do). . Ps your all talking about fuel and energy however, about 25% of c02 comes from agriculture, it simply leeches out ploughing soil, then there's the methane caused by animal cultivation, replacing concrete (that's 15% of c02 production) I take it you'll still want concrete for your reactors be they Fusion or fission, then there's the fact that the energy your going to produce, well alot of it will go in to making err heat, well you know that c02 traps heat like and your going to still be making loads albeit from c02 free source. Then there's ships and airlines, electric conversion?. And one last niggling problem, you've yet to decide what to do with the 450 nuclear power stations which are pretty much all located at the water's edge, that's water that's set to rise pretty quickly and then there's the relocation of the world's 4.5 billon people who also live on the edge of the water, that might be energy intensive moving that lot?. . Personally if you really insist on it I'd go with option 1 and cross your fingers and maybe your toes as well
Jesus !
That is a problem ...or the current problem !
It doesn't work !
Are you naive enough to think that your scheme would bring any benefit to the consumer !
What you propose is a nightmare that would only benefit The "climate change" leeches !
As usual the consumer would foot the bill as we already do now!
In short, your solution is to make the existing environmental taxes higher than they are now !
How does the enviroment benefit from that? ..... It doesn't !
mmmmmm... that got me wondering .... do you own carbon market shares ? .
You couldn't even be bothered to read what I wrote, I dunno I'd like to say your a fuckwit or at very best a halfwit but I actually think your brighter than that, your just living in fear, something I gave up years ago, try it someday
Jesus Sick...boy !
Why are you ruining a decent thread with name calling ?
I did read what you wrote ! And I am sorry if you are pissed of because I don't agree with you !
I don't really get what you referring to when you say I´nm living in fear !
So care to explain that ......
Because you twisted what I wrote which is everybody gets an equal share back!!!???
To its a tax that the government will screw you over.
Its not name calling, your either a fucking idiot who didn't read what I wrote or (which I suspect) somebody living in fear of the truth.
Now if you want to argue about the science, go ahead, I'll chew you up and spit you out like the fucking nobody who's read shit all you are but you don't, you just twist shit to suit your fear.
That's fine I get that, we're all afraid of death, but please don't twist the words I'm writing to suit your belief, this is exactly why I gave up arguing about climate change
Ok ! thanks for clearing that up !
So lets recap :
"Because you twisted what I wrote which is everybody gets an equal share back!!!???"
You really believe that ? power to you !
I don't , and I merely pointed that out, and careful reading bears that out! no distortion needed !
Its your right to be upset when someone disagrees with you !
"To its a tax that the government will screw you over."
I guess you meant "to me"
And yes ... I do think government would screw us over with a tax like that! Track record unfortunately favours my assumption ! I think !
"Its not name calling, your either a fucking idiot who didn't read what I wrote or (which I suspect) somebody living in fear of the truth."
NO... no name calling at all !
"your either a fucking idiot who didn't read what I wrote "
No... no name calling... move along!
"your either a fucking idiot who didn't read what I wrote (which I suspect) somebody living in fear of the truth."
What truth would that be ?
Really ! I am curious ?
Also :
"I'll chew you up and spit you out like the fucking nobody who's read shit all you are but you don't, you just twist shit to suit your fear."
Again ..no name calling , but what have I twisted to suit my fear ? And what fear is that you keep repeating ? .
Argue science, most of the stuff you repeat is utterly bollocks,I just can't be botherd correcting you, now opinions are totally different,I like your opinions, that's a thought you personally have dreamt up, everybody should have opinions, its what makes meeting people great... However
Don't confuse your opinion with science, you do it constantly "climate changes" "pollutants" "fossil fuels are harmless" "alarmists"..
Honestly your like somebody who's never read a scientific paper in your life and if you did, your deny them as closed minded government Stooges, the only people who do this are people living in fear, your so afraid of the answer you'll say any old bollocks, your not alone, most of these fuckers on here are just the same, they've just got a little more education than you to repeat the crap you come out with
Lol.... now you "assume " about my education , my "fear" and worse... you starting to remind me of another poster on anther thread that posts BS then tries to pass it off as if you said it !
But not content to demean me you suggest: " your not alone, most of these fuckers on here are just the same, they've just got a little more education than you to repeat the crap you come out with" So that is how you view your fellow posters ?
Well done ! Oh no name calling there either ! right ?
So ... its ironic that all other uneducated ignorant posters on here are trying in a constructive way , to discuss an important matter, but its you mr. Superior knowledge , that feels the need to show you superior intellect and education , by calling us names ?
Wow Pieces.... I would say you are tearing your tearing you reputation to "pieces" ...lol.... pun intended !
On the other hand ...It might be a Freudian lapse.. and you´re projecting !
But then maybe you are just being a Piece of......
Read what I actually write you might learn something, if you want to troll me expect to be trolled back and don't cry about it life's a two way steak.
If you want to ACTUALLY add something like you claim then ACTUALLY add something and not just utter bollocks that you've read on a website or just made up off the top of your head, if you don't know anything about the subject which you clearly don't just listen to what people like me (somebody who's actually spent twenty fucking years reading about it) has to say"Wow ! good to know you actually read ! But you assume others don't ! I have been reading about it a lot longer , but its not enough to read something ! You have to understand what you are reading ! Besides... I am a bit older , so I pre date the internet ...lol.... First article I read on "climate Change" was back in the seventies ! lol... Back then ... the fear was ... global cooling.... For someone is is allegedly so "cultured" you are very quick to resort to lowering yourself , by assuming others are uneducated just because their opinion differs from yours ! And... resorting to offending people !
Now, that says a lot about you ...so how low can you go ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" While we are spending billions trying to limit emissions , all it takes is for some of the more active volcanoes to get nasty ! They have the ability to put more shit in the atmosphere in a week then we produce in a year ! This shows how human impact is dwarfed by the power of nature ! Having said that, it doesn't mean we shouldn't do our best to put less shit into the atmosphere ! But in the end .... Man´s impact is by comparison ... small ! . See this sort of fucking nonsense gets on my tits, you've read this and not researched it one little bit, and you bang on constantly about researching evidence .. Well fucking do some! Start at how much c02 the world produces a year (I'll give you a clue its about one million kilogrammes a second). And then look at a volcanoes emissions (I'll give you another clue... Its fucking no where near you Wally). " lol.... there you go ! Its all about one element ! Co2 ! mmmm ... very scientific of you! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" While we are spending billions trying to limit emissions , all it takes is for some of the more active volcanoes to get nasty ! They have the ability to put more shit in the atmosphere in a week then we produce in a year ! This shows how human impact is dwarfed by the power of nature ! Having said that, it doesn't mean we shouldn't do our best to put less shit into the atmosphere ! But in the end .... Man´s impact is by comparison ... small ! . See this sort of fucking nonsense gets on my tits, you've read this and not researched it one little bit, and you bang on constantly about researching evidence .. Well fucking do some! Start at how much c02 the world produces a year (I'll give you a clue its about one million kilogrammes a second). And then look at a volcanoes emissions (I'll give you another clue... Its fucking no where near you Wally). lol.... there you go ! Its all about one element ! Co2 ! mmmm ... very scientific of you! ". No do the figures on the methane and sulphur as well if you want!. The particulates.. Still less, besides they actually produce global dimming just like the sulphate particulars that industrialization ?produces.. Or do you not believe the science on that either, perhaps all the volcano experts collude on that just to swindle more research money!!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Wow ! good to know you actually read ! But you assume others don't ! I have been reading about it a lot longer , but its not enough to read something ! You have to understand what you are reading ! Besides... I am a bit older , so I pre date the internet ...lol.... First article I read on "climate Change" was back in the seventies ! lol... Back then ... the fear was ... global cooling.... For someone is is allegedly so "cultured" you are very quick to resort to lowering yourself , by assuming others are uneducated just because their opinion differs from yours ! And... resorting to offending people !
Now, that says a lot about you ...so how low can you go ? ". Wow in the 70s you read the 6 scientific papers released that indicated global cooling... What and totally ignored the 37 that indicated global warming and from that experience you concluded everybody's lying to get their hands on your ten Bob | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" While we are spending billions trying to limit emissions , all it takes is for some of the more active volcanoes to get nasty ! They have the ability to put more shit in the atmosphere in a week then we produce in a year ! This shows how human impact is dwarfed by the power of nature ! Having said that, it doesn't mean we shouldn't do our best to put less shit into the atmosphere ! But in the end .... Man´s impact is by comparison ... small ! " My dude you are way off the ball with this. Our daily emmitions are currently way more than the earths volcanic activity output, I think yearly. I was not supporting your ideology, I was disproving your bullshit. Yes there are internal events which can suddenly escalate or radically vhange the earths atmospheric chemistry, however these have to be, to be blunt, huge local events or extinction level events. If we woke up tomorrow and found that valcanoes were putting as much co2 into the atmosphere as we do daily, we'd be less concerned about climate change and more concerned about saving about 4.8 billion people from erruptions, and preparing the world for global food shortages. In short. Our activities, lack of regulation, and rampant consumerism are the issues here. Its time to own up and take responcibility. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The trouble with the scientific argument is the time scale. People read paragraphs like “The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia” And think that means humans are to blame for climate change but they don’t realise a millennium is a blink of the eye in the world’s history and climate change. We are still coming out of the last ice age and the world will carry on warming for at least another millennium, to say otherwise is to fool oneself. Mankind does have an effect on climate change but the effect is about the same as heating a city with a single one bar electric fire. That is not to say we should not be concerned about pollution, but polutio is a different problem " Yeah okay you are wrong and right. We are coming out of a period of cooling - atleast if the trends of interglacial periods are correct. However, it is the rate of warming. Never before have so many warming gasses been released at such a rapid rate. This of course means we will get rapid warming. You have to think of the global impact of this this. We rely as a species, hugely on seafood and crops which are annual snd bi annual - wheat, rice, all those fruits and veggies which need lots of water.. Disrupt the natural rate of warming and you disrupt the predictability of rainfall. This will cause food shortsges. Escalate the rate of warming via methane and co2, and you will cause ocean acidification. In short, ruining global fish stocks. The real problem is people often cannot contemplate that we have evolved as a modern society to enjoy certain things set in stone. Whilst our desire for more of this disrupts the very systems which allow us to control our own environment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The trouble with the scientific argument is the time scale. People read paragraphs like “The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia” And think that means humans are to blame for climate change but they don’t realise a millennium is a blink of the eye in the world’s history and climate change. We are still coming out of the last ice age and the world will carry on warming for at least another millennium, to say otherwise is to fool oneself. Mankind does have an effect on climate change but the effect is about the same as heating a city with a single one bar electric fire. That is not to say we should not be concerned about pollution, but polutio is a different problem " . That's not true, we measure the heat being trapped in the stratosphere, its long wave radiation trapped at the c02 level, we KNOW it's c02 tapping the majority of the extra heat, we KNOW how much c02 we put out in emissions, we can do the sums to see how much heat will be trapped by future emissions. We can't say for certain how much natural variation is taking place but We KNOW the sun is not giving the extra heat because we've studied it and measured it for 300 years, its output over that time is DOWN. we can't say what the future will hold for volcanic eruptions with certainty however we can say here's the last 300 years of observed volcanic eruptions and here's the probability of future ones. We have measured with fairly good accuracy the long term variation of the inter glacial period, its 0.2 degrees c over 11,000 years but here's the problem the last 150 years have seen a 1.2 degrees c rise, this big rise has been caused by human industrialization?and that's a 99% certainty | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The trouble with the scientific argument is the time scale. People read paragraphs like “The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia” And think that means humans are to blame for climate change but they don’t realise a millennium is a blink of the eye in the world’s history and climate change. We are still coming out of the last ice age and the world will carry on warming for at least another millennium, to say otherwise is to fool oneself. Mankind does have an effect on climate change but the effect is about the same as heating a city with a single one bar electric fire. That is not to say we should not be concerned about pollution, but polutio is a different problem " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"think the only way is to shrink comsumer demand, big corps want big roi in shortest time possible. fast fashion,new mobile phones coming out every second, huge deforestation to meet the demands of mcds and palm oils, fracking polluting chemicals etc, this planet will survive has done for billions of years, compare that to your 80 or 90. man is biggest problem and dodgy deals and short minded greed Can you expand this into a solution? You are good at asking the right questions. Because i know fuck all about climate change "Then you are best placed to listen to arguments in a fair light. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Mankind does have an effect on climate change but the effect is about the same as heating a city with a single one bar electric fire." What a pile of total codswallop! Where did you get the idea that our effect on climate change is 'about the same as heating a city with a single one bar electric fire'?, because you really need to have a word with them maybe even give them a slap for lying to you! Rather than me telling you the reality of how much we are contributing to climate change I'll tell you how you can work it out for yourself... A few years ago Top Gear rented a field and grew some bio diesel... First find out how big the field was, how much diesel they grew and how long it took to grow that diesel. A quick bit of arithmetic will convert the number of gallons into barrels of fuel. Another bit of division will give you barrels per acre of hector (use measuring system of your own choice) over time, a final bit of division and multiplication will give you an annual yield per unit of land. Now look up how much diesel the planet uses annually and divide that by the number you got above to get annual area required to produce our annual diesel requirement. I guarantee its a BIG number. Now finally look up the total land mass of the earth and subtract the desert land mass from that and your left with net global land mass that could be used to produce diesel. Bet that's another BIG number! That is how much stored sunlight we release burning diesel every year! Now add the stored sunlight used from all the other fossil fuels we burn and then tell me it is the 'about the same as heating a city with a single one bar electric fire'! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Before a problem can be solved it needs to be acknowledged. We will never solve the problem until the deniers are forced to admit the reality of the situation. The world is in exactly the same place with climate change as it was with the tobacco companies in the 50's and 60's. The petrochemical industry know the harm they are doing but are increasing production and product use in order to make as much money as they can before being closed down, and they do not care how much damage they do or how many people die as a result of their corporate greed." A lot of the deniers of Climate change.. Will admit to having a small effect. Most will admit that we're polluting quite heavily and that it's not really acceptable. Most will admit that switching to renewables, fusion or something else.. isn't a bad idea in itself. They just want to argue climate change. If you can get them to admit our oceans are full of plastics and that our forests are being destroyed and that the gases we release are harmful to us.. regardless of temperature. Then you can get them to agree it needs to be changed. Which in turn.. would help us to tackle climate change.. regardless of whether it exists. Surely solving the problem is more important than being right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
.
.
I chuckle to myself with great glee that very very soon, these people will be crying, wailing and screaming.... How did this happen!!, why didn't somebody do something when we had the chance, this is typical of politicans, theyve screwed us once again!
Congratulations you fucking chumps, you've sealed your own fate! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Before a problem can be solved it needs to be acknowledged. We will never solve the problem until the deniers are forced to admit the reality of the situation. The world is in exactly the same place with climate change as it was with the tobacco companies in the 50's and 60's. The petrochemical industry know the harm they are doing but are increasing production and product use in order to make as much money as they can before being closed down, and they do not care how much damage they do or how many people die as a result of their corporate greed. A lot of the deniers of Climate change.. Will admit to having a small effect. Most will admit that we're polluting quite heavily and that it's not really acceptable. Most will admit that switching to renewables, fusion or something else.. isn't a bad idea in itself. They just want to argue climate change. If you can get them to admit our oceans are full of plastics and that our forests are being destroyed and that the gases we release are harmful to us.. regardless of temperature. Then you can get them to agree it needs to be changed. Which in turn.. would help us to tackle climate change.. regardless of whether it exists. Surely solving the problem is more important than being right?" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What we have here, is a failure to communicate! Some men you just can't reach, so you get what we had here today, that's the way they want it, well they get it. .
.
I chuckle to myself with great glee that very very soon, these people will be crying, wailing and screaming.... How did this happen!!, why didn't somebody do something when we had the chance, this is typical of politicans, theyve screwed us once again!
Congratulations you fucking chumps, you've sealed your own fate! "Looove...you flair for drama.. ! Calmly waiting for that doomsday scenario !
Will all the wailing and crying contribute to sea level rise ? I mean...all those tears
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Theres 30,000 50 feet wide methane crater ponds in permafrost Canada. 10,000 plus methane mounds in Siberia. Alaska is full of 100 foot wide 100 foot deep blowholes. The Arctic sea has been filmed bubbling methane for hundreds of square miles... The scientific study of this new phenomenon was very interesting, nearly every single one of the scientists were dumb founded, gob smacked and speechless. The models didn't predict permafrost melt until at least 2050!. Five times a year for the last ten years studies get published that just utterly confound them because theyve been working on linear increases for decades and all the observation shows its exponential! In fact only two years ago there was a paper in nature that pretty much proved even if you abandoned fossil fuels today... You'd still need massive carbon capture to avoid +5 degrees. They never play those studies on the BBC, never get printed in newspapers, yet there they are in print and peer reviewed??" Shush now you'll upset the children... Remember 'auntie knows best' and we don't mention about things like this in front of the children because it gives them nightmares... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What we have here, is a failure to communicate! Some men you just can't reach, so you get what we had here today, that's the way they want it, well they get it. .
.
I chuckle to myself with great glee that very very soon, these people will be crying, wailing and screaming.... How did this happen!!, why didn't somebody do something when we had the chance, this is typical of politicans, theyve screwed us once again!
Congratulations you fucking chumps, you've sealed your own fate!
Looove...you flair for drama.. !
Calmly waiting for that doomsday scenario !
Will all the wailing and crying contribute to sea level rise ? I mean...all those tears
". Drama is always at its best when portrayed as truthful as possible! All you have to do is look. I'm just writing things that are factually correct, look at the evidence yourself, read the studies, look at the observations already made! The species extinction rate is higher today than anytime since the great dieing 250 million years ago! Why do you think that is Tony? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Theres 30,000 50 feet wide methane crater ponds in permafrost Canada. 10,000 plus methane mounds in Siberia. Alaska is full of 100 foot wide 100 foot deep blowholes. The Arctic sea has been filmed bubbling methane for hundreds of square miles... The scientific study of this new phenomenon was very interesting, nearly every single one of the scientists were dumb founded, gob smacked and speechless. The models didn't predict permafrost melt until at least 2050!. Five times a year for the last ten years studies get published that just utterly confound them because theyve been working on linear increases for decades and all the observation shows its exponential! In fact only two years ago there was a paper in nature that pretty much proved even if you abandoned fossil fuels today... You'd still need massive carbon capture to avoid +5 degrees. They never play those studies on the BBC, never get printed in newspapers, yet there they are in print and peer reviewed??" I agree with you.. but we need as Many people onside as possible.. what does it matter what we call it - if scientists and engineers get the funding they need to fix it? Doing as much as possible, as fast as possible is all we can do.. China has made strong efforts recently, as have many nations. Let's push for all we can. Now... do we have a Solution on Climate Change yet a concencous for all those who commented. Is it a uni-lateral.. all arms scientific and engineering attack on any alternative method to combat climate/pollution/Enviromental problems.. from bottom up and top down? Or fusion? Or something else? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Theres 30,000 50 feet wide methane crater ponds in permafrost Canada. 10,000 plus methane mounds in Siberia. Alaska is full of 100 foot wide 100 foot deep blowholes. The Arctic sea has been filmed bubbling methane for hundreds of square miles... The scientific study of this new phenomenon was very interesting, nearly every single one of the scientists were dumb founded, gob smacked and speechless. The models didn't predict permafrost melt until at least 2050!. Five times a year for the last ten years studies get published that just utterly confound them because theyve been working on linear increases for decades and all the observation shows its exponential! In fact only two years ago there was a paper in nature that pretty much proved even if you abandoned fossil fuels today... You'd still need massive carbon capture to avoid +5 degrees. They never play those studies on the BBC, never get printed in newspapers, yet there they are in print and peer reviewed?? I agree with you.. but we need as Many people onside as possible.. what does it matter what we call it - if scientists and engineers get the funding they need to fix it? Doing as much as possible, as fast as possible is all we can do.. China has made strong efforts recently, as have many nations. Let's push for all we can. Now... do we have a Solution on Climate Change yet a concencous for all those who commented. Is it a uni-lateral.. all arms scientific and engineering attack on any alternative method to combat climate/pollution/Enviromental problems.. from bottom up and top down? Or fusion? Or something else? " There is no consensus.... in fact there is censorship and persecution of any who dare as questions.... It sounds more like a cult then science, and that is what makes people suspicious! Here is an example : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98a4pHr3Cbk Quick ... call the inquisition ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Theres 30,000 50 feet wide methane crater ponds in permafrost Canada. 10,000 plus methane mounds in Siberia. Alaska is full of 100 foot wide 100 foot deep blowholes. The Arctic sea has been filmed bubbling methane for hundreds of square miles... The scientific study of this new phenomenon was very interesting, nearly every single one of the scientists were dumb founded, gob smacked and speechless. The models didn't predict permafrost melt until at least 2050!. Five times a year for the last ten years studies get published that just utterly confound them because theyve been working on linear increases for decades and all the observation shows its exponential! In fact only two years ago there was a paper in nature that pretty much proved even if you abandoned fossil fuels today... You'd still need massive carbon capture to avoid +5 degrees. They never play those studies on the BBC, never get printed in newspapers, yet there they are in print and peer reviewed?? I agree with you.. but we need as Many people onside as possible.. what does it matter what we call it - if scientists and engineers get the funding they need to fix it? Doing as much as possible, as fast as possible is all we can do.. China has made strong efforts recently, as have many nations. Let's push for all we can. Now... do we have a Solution on Climate Change yet a concencous for all those who commented. Is it a uni-lateral.. all arms scientific and engineering attack on any alternative method to combat climate/pollution/Enviromental problems.. from bottom up and top down? Or fusion? Or something else? There is no consensus.... in fact there is censorship and persecution of any who dare as questions.... It sounds more like a cult then science, and that is what makes people suspicious! Here is an example : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98a4pHr3Cbk Quick ... call the inquisition ! ". Have you actually watched the clip yourself Tony? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Theres 30,000 50 feet wide methane crater ponds in permafrost Canada. 10,000 plus methane mounds in Siberia. Alaska is full of 100 foot wide 100 foot deep blowholes. The Arctic sea has been filmed bubbling methane for hundreds of square miles... The scientific study of this new phenomenon was very interesting, nearly every single one of the scientists were dumb founded, gob smacked and speechless. The models didn't predict permafrost melt until at least 2050!. Five times a year for the last ten years studies get published that just utterly confound them because theyve been working on linear increases for decades and all the observation shows its exponential! In fact only two years ago there was a paper in nature that pretty much proved even if you abandoned fossil fuels today... You'd still need massive carbon capture to avoid +5 degrees. They never play those studies on the BBC, never get printed in newspapers, yet there they are in print and peer reviewed?? I agree with you.. but we need as Many people onside as possible.. what does it matter what we call it - if scientists and engineers get the funding they need to fix it? Doing as much as possible, as fast as possible is all we can do.. China has made strong efforts recently, as have many nations. Let's push for all we can. Now... do we have a Solution on Climate Change yet a concencous for all those who commented. Is it a uni-lateral.. all arms scientific and engineering attack on any alternative method to combat climate/pollution/Enviromental problems.. from bottom up and top down? Or fusion? Or something else? There is no consensus.... in fact there is censorship and persecution of any who dare as questions.... It sounds more like a cult then science, and that is what makes people suspicious! Here is an example : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98a4pHr3Cbk Quick ... call the inquisition ! .
Have you actually watched the clip yourself Tony?"yes ! I have ! this version is actually not the one I intended to put up , as the there is a shorter version ! Why do you ask ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Theres 30,000 50 feet wide methane crater ponds in permafrost Canada. 10,000 plus methane mounds in Siberia. Alaska is full of 100 foot wide 100 foot deep blowholes. The Arctic sea has been filmed bubbling methane for hundreds of square miles... The scientific study of this new phenomenon was very interesting, nearly every single one of the scientists were dumb founded, gob smacked and speechless. The models didn't predict permafrost melt until at least 2050!. Five times a year for the last ten years studies get published that just utterly confound them because theyve been working on linear increases for decades and all the observation shows its exponential! In fact only two years ago there was a paper in nature that pretty much proved even if you abandoned fossil fuels today... You'd still need massive carbon capture to avoid +5 degrees. They never play those studies on the BBC, never get printed in newspapers, yet there they are in print and peer reviewed?? I agree with you.. but we need as Many people onside as possible.. what does it matter what we call it - if scientists and engineers get the funding they need to fix it? Doing as much as possible, as fast as possible is all we can do.. China has made strong efforts recently, as have many nations. Let's push for all we can. Now... do we have a Solution on Climate Change yet a concencous for all those who commented. Is it a uni-lateral.. all arms scientific and engineering attack on any alternative method to combat climate/pollution/Enviromental problems.. from bottom up and top down? Or fusion? Or something else? There is no consensus.... in fact there is censorship and persecution of any who dare as questions.... It sounds more like a cult then science, and that is what makes people suspicious! Here is an example : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98a4pHr3Cbk Quick ... call the inquisition ! .
Have you actually watched the clip yourself Tony?
yes ! I have ! this version is actually not the one I intended to put up , as the there is a shorter version !
Why do you ask ? ". I just wondered if you noticed the bit when she said. The mechanism for c02 heating the atmosphere has been well known and proven for years. We know and have measured the recent warming over the last 100 years. Judith curry is well known in climate circles as a sceptic, she says since "climate gate" well yes but then she did go to work for the heartland institute who are financed and funded by the Koch brothers for decades to the tune of tens of millions of dollars (the Koch brothers are a couple of billionaires who happen to have there main business in petroleum) anyhow even as one of the main sceptics, she's not stupid enough to deny basic science so what she says is were not really sure where the warming is coming from and how much we going to get in the future (which by the way is the main argument left by the only THREE climate scientists left who deny anthropogenic climate change). But ask her WHERE she thinks the warming is coming from??? Its the sun, its ocean currents, its milankovitch cycle.. All of which have been thoroughly studied for decades by hundreds of scientists and pretty much every scientific academy in the world and nobody has found any evidence at all that any of those could be causing the warming! Now don't find anything she says as slightly suspicious at all? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Theres 30,000 50 feet wide methane crater ponds in permafrost Canada. 10,000 plus methane mounds in Siberia. Alaska is full of 100 foot wide 100 foot deep blowholes. The Arctic sea has been filmed bubbling methane for hundreds of square miles... The scientific study of this new phenomenon was very interesting, nearly every single one of the scientists were dumb founded, gob smacked and speechless. The models didn't predict permafrost melt until at least 2050!. Five times a year for the last ten years studies get published that just utterly confound them because theyve been working on linear increases for decades and all the observation shows its exponential! In fact only two years ago there was a paper in nature that pretty much proved even if you abandoned fossil fuels today... You'd still need massive carbon capture to avoid +5 degrees. They never play those studies on the BBC, never get printed in newspapers, yet there they are in print and peer reviewed?? I agree with you.. but we need as Many people onside as possible.. what does it matter what we call it - if scientists and engineers get the funding they need to fix it? Doing as much as possible, as fast as possible is all we can do.. China has made strong efforts recently, as have many nations. Let's push for all we can. Now... do we have a Solution on Climate Change yet a concencous for all those who commented. Is it a uni-lateral.. all arms scientific and engineering attack on any alternative method to combat climate/pollution/Enviromental problems.. from bottom up and top down? Or fusion? Or something else? There is no consensus.... in fact there is censorship and persecution of any who dare as questions.... It sounds more like a cult then science, and that is what makes people suspicious! Here is an example : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98a4pHr3Cbk Quick ... call the inquisition ! .
Have you actually watched the clip yourself Tony?
yes ! I have ! this version is actually not the one I intended to put up , as the there is a shorter version !
Why do you ask ? .
I just wondered if you noticed the bit when she said.
The mechanism for c02 heating the atmosphere has been well known and proven for years.
We know and have measured the recent warming over the last 100 years.
Judith curry is well known in climate circles as a sceptic, she says since "climate gate" well yes but then she did go to work for the heartland institute who are financed and funded by the Koch brothers for decades to the tune of tens of millions of dollars (the Koch brothers are a couple of billionaires who happen to have there main business in petroleum) anyhow even as one of the main sceptics, she's not stupid enough to deny basic science so what she says is were not really sure where the warming is coming from and how much we going to get in the future (which by the way is the main argument left by the only THREE climate scientists left who deny anthropogenic climate change).
But ask her WHERE she thinks the warming is coming from??? Its the sun, its ocean currents, its milankovitch cycle.. All of which have been thoroughly studied for decades by hundreds of scientists and pretty much every scientific academy in the world and nobody has found any evidence at all that any of those could be causing the warming!
Now don't find anything she says as slightly suspicious at all?"Yes ... lots is suspicious ..and she mentioned it ! But its false to say there is a consensus, and she explains why ! not that you care .... But you prefer to cherry pick to discredit her ! Climate gate for you didn't happen ...right ?
just because a "majority" says something does it mean they are correct ? NO
Its science not democracy or religion !
Geocentricism was also the consensus , as was divine creation ! then then some pesky deniers came along and ruined it all ... do the names Galileo or Darwin ring a bell ? | |||
(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 |
"Tony trying to own the scientific ground by claiming Darwin was a denier of the same vein of climate change deniers is laughable and blatantly absurd. Yet when presented with evidence of carbon 14 isotopes choose not to respond. People lie, isotopes and ice cores dont lie. "Maybe not ...but are they the only elements to be considered ? It would be so easy if all could be explained by those two elements !
But it cant ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"one solution would be to place plastic bags over the heads of the climate change deniers and never take them off again" That would help them understand the carbon cycle in a closed system. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Its irrefutable.Except it and move on. "No ! its this thing I have ... I hate fundamentalism and fanaticism ! So I´l stick to my guns , so to speak ! I would rather howl with the wolves (those who have the integrity to be real scientists and ask inconvenient questions), then bleat with the sheep ! ( all you "consensus " "scientists") | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"one solution would be to place plastic bags over the heads of the climate change deniers and never take them off again That would help them understand the carbon cycle in a closed system. "if it stopped the fetid excrement comming out of their mouths i'd be happy .... simultaneously schooling them in science would be bonus though | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"1. CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere, and the posters who say it's not a pollutant are correct. There has to be CO2 in the atmosphere for trees to grow. BUT, the level of CO2 does affect the Earth's energy budget, so on average the global temperature has to rise to get rid of the extra heat. That process means a more energetic atmosphere. As far as methane is concerned, again, it's natural, but it is a very potent greenhouse gas. The fact that it decays in 20 years is benign, and the fact that it decays into CO2 is really neither here nor there because its such a small percentatge of what is there already in mass terms." . Something being "natural" is neither here nor there, if it's bad for you at a certain level its a pollutant, say you lived in Cornwall and your house was filling with natural occurring radioactive radon gas , there's only a tiny fraction of what's in your house but at that level theres no problem, now imagine it doubles in volume getting in, at that level its deadly, its? still only is a tiny fraction of the volume of your house. Your neighbour comes along and says.. Have no fear, this is natural gas and is only 0.000001% of the atmosphere in your house, just carry on. Meanwhile your doctor who's studied the effects of radon gas for decades tells you, either stop the gas getting in or move out or it will kill you in 30 years. Who's advise are you going to take? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of course carbon is natural we are carbon based life forms .Burning fossil fuels is not natural and effects the carbon cycle. For the many years the oceans have been our saviour by absorbing carbon,but thats begining to change and time is running out. The oceans are by far the largest carbon sink in the world. Some 93 percent of carbon dioxide is stored in algae, vegetation, and coral under the sea. But oceans are not able to absorb all of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels. In fact, a recent study suggests that the oceans have absorbed a smaller proportion of fossil-fuel emissions, nearly 10 percent less, since 2000.The reason is based in part on simple chemistry. Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide have turned waters more acidic, especially nearer to the poles. While carbon dioxide dissolves more readily in cold, dense seawater, these waters are less capable of sequestering the gas as the ocean becomes more acidic. ". Facts facts facts... Have you forgotten? how important opinion is as well?. The world changes, things change, weather changes, climate changes, sun activity changes, orbit changes. The only thing that doesn't, is human dogmatic belief in not changing | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of course carbon is natural we are carbon based life forms .Burning fossil fuels is not natural and effects the carbon cycle. For the many years the oceans have been our saviour by absorbing carbon,but thats begining to change and time is running out. The oceans are by far the largest carbon sink in the world. Some 93 percent of carbon dioxide is stored in algae, vegetation, and coral under the sea. But oceans are not able to absorb all of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels. In fact, a recent study suggests that the oceans have absorbed a smaller proportion of fossil-fuel emissions, nearly 10 percent less, since 2000.The reason is based in part on simple chemistry. Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide have turned waters more acidic, especially nearer to the poles. While carbon dioxide dissolves more readily in cold, dense seawater, these waters are less capable of sequestering the gas as the ocean becomes more acidic. .
Facts facts facts... Have you forgotten? how important opinion is as well?.
The world changes, things change, weather changes, climate changes, sun activity changes, orbit changes.
The only thing that doesn't, is human dogmatic belief in not changing "
For once you are right !
Now.... apply that thought to the consensus crowd ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of course carbon is natural we are carbon based life forms .Burning fossil fuels is not natural and effects the carbon cycle. For the many years the oceans have been our saviour by absorbing carbon,but thats begining to change and time is running out. The oceans are by far the largest carbon sink in the world. Some 93 percent of carbon dioxide is stored in algae, vegetation, and coral under the sea. But oceans are not able to absorb all of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels. In fact, a recent study suggests that the oceans have absorbed a smaller proportion of fossil-fuel emissions, nearly 10 percent less, since 2000.The reason is based in part on simple chemistry. Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide have turned waters more acidic, especially nearer to the poles. While carbon dioxide dissolves more readily in cold, dense seawater, these waters are less capable of sequestering the gas as the ocean becomes more acidic. .
Facts facts facts... Have you forgotten? how important opinion is as well?.
The world changes, things change, weather changes, climate changes, sun activity changes, orbit changes.
The only thing that doesn't, is human dogmatic belief in not changing
For once you are right !
Now.... apply that thought to the consensus crowd !"You are hard work Tony. The scientific consensus says Darwin is correct yet millions believe in creationism and Adam and Eve.In the USA many want to teach creationism alongside evolution .Even the vice president advocates this.is that a world you wish to live...? Science denialism is through social media will finish this civilsation off.You my friend will be part of this destruction.You complain about the medieval mind set of muslims.You unfortunately are no better. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of course carbon is natural we are carbon based life forms .Burning fossil fuels is not natural and effects the carbon cycle. For the many years the oceans have been our saviour by absorbing carbon,but thats begining to change and time is running out. The oceans are by far the largest carbon sink in the world. Some 93 percent of carbon dioxide is stored in algae, vegetation, and coral under the sea. But oceans are not able to absorb all of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels. In fact, a recent study suggests that the oceans have absorbed a smaller proportion of fossil-fuel emissions, nearly 10 percent less, since 2000.The reason is based in part on simple chemistry. Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide have turned waters more acidic, especially nearer to the poles. While carbon dioxide dissolves more readily in cold, dense seawater, these waters are less capable of sequestering the gas as the ocean becomes more acidic. .
Facts facts facts... Have you forgotten? how important opinion is as well?.
The world changes, things change, weather changes, climate changes, sun activity changes, orbit changes.
The only thing that doesn't, is human dogmatic belief in not changing
For once you are right !
Now.... apply that thought to the consensus crowd ! You are hard work Tony. The scientific consensus says Darwin is correct yet millions believe in creationism and Adam and Eve.In the USA many want to teach creationism alongside evolution .Even the vice president advocates this.is that a world you wish to live...? Science denialism is through social media will finish this civilsation off.You my friend will be part of this destruction.You complain about the medieval mind set of muslims.You unfortunately are no better."Well Bob ... we have different opinions and views on certain issues and on this thread we have actually agreed on others! We both care for the enviroment, but have different perspectives on it , so be it your way or mine, what would be great is that more people were ACTUALLY doing something about it ! This is why I consider myself a pragmatic environmentalist , and defend separating environmental care/recovery and sustainability from "Climate change" debate ! As we have seen on here ,when both are bundled up , we get nothing more then a heated argument , but no actual solutions !
No one wins...and WE ALL loose ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of course carbon is natural we are carbon based life forms .Burning fossil fuels is not natural and effects the carbon cycle. For the many years the oceans have been our saviour by absorbing carbon,but thats begining to change and time is running out. The oceans are by far the largest carbon sink in the world. Some 93 percent of carbon dioxide is stored in algae, vegetation, and coral under the sea. But oceans are not able to absorb all of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels. In fact, a recent study suggests that the oceans have absorbed a smaller proportion of fossil-fuel emissions, nearly 10 percent less, since 2000.The reason is based in part on simple chemistry. Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide have turned waters more acidic, especially nearer to the poles. While carbon dioxide dissolves more readily in cold, dense seawater, these waters are less capable of sequestering the gas as the ocean becomes more acidic. .
Facts facts facts... Have you forgotten? how important opinion is as well?.
The world changes, things change, weather changes, climate changes, sun activity changes, orbit changes.
The only thing that doesn't, is human dogmatic belief in not changing
For once you are right !
Now.... apply that thought to the consensus crowd ! You are hard work Tony. The scientific consensus says Darwin is correct yet millions believe in creationism and Adam and Eve.In the USA many want to teach creationism alongside evolution .Even the vice president advocates this.is that a world you wish to live...? Science denialism is through social media will finish this civilsation off.You my friend will be part of this destruction.You complain about the medieval mind set of muslims.You unfortunately are no better.
Well Bob ... we have different opinions and views on certain issues and on this thread we have actually agreed on others!
We both care for the enviroment, but have different perspectives on it , so be it your way or mine, what would be great is that more people were ACTUALLY doing something about it !
This is why I consider myself a pragmatic environmentalist , and defend separating environmental care/recovery and sustainability from "Climate change" debate !
As we have seen on here ,when both are bundled up , we get nothing more then a heated argument , but no actual solutions !
No one wins...and WE ALL loose ! "Yes so was there actually a solution in any of the handbags that were being thrown? We already had an effing thread that decided this was the issue so it's not up for debate. The premise of the thread is man made climate change is an issue, what can we do about it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of course carbon is natural we are carbon based life forms .Burning fossil fuels is not natural and effects the carbon cycle. For the many years the oceans have been our saviour by absorbing carbon,but thats begining to change and time is running out. The oceans are by far the largest carbon sink in the world. Some 93 percent of carbon dioxide is stored in algae, vegetation, and coral under the sea. But oceans are not able to absorb all of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels. In fact, a recent study suggests that the oceans have absorbed a smaller proportion of fossil-fuel emissions, nearly 10 percent less, since 2000.The reason is based in part on simple chemistry. Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide have turned waters more acidic, especially nearer to the poles. While carbon dioxide dissolves more readily in cold, dense seawater, these waters are less capable of sequestering the gas as the ocean becomes more acidic. .
Facts facts facts... Have you forgotten? how important opinion is as well?.
The world changes, things change, weather changes, climate changes, sun activity changes, orbit changes.
The only thing that doesn't, is human dogmatic belief in not changing
For once you are right !
Now.... apply that thought to the consensus crowd ! You are hard work Tony. The scientific consensus says Darwin is correct yet millions believe in creationism and Adam and Eve.In the USA many want to teach creationism alongside evolution .Even the vice president advocates this.is that a world you wish to live...? Science denialism is through social media will finish this civilsation off.You my friend will be part of this destruction.You complain about the medieval mind set of muslims.You unfortunately are no better.
Well Bob ... we have different opinions and views on certain issues and on this thread we have actually agreed on others!
We both care for the enviroment, but have different perspectives on it , so be it your way or mine, what would be great is that more people were ACTUALLY doing something about it !
This is why I consider myself a pragmatic environmentalist , and defend separating environmental care/recovery and sustainability from "Climate change" debate !
As we have seen on here ,when both are bundled up , we get nothing more then a heated argument , but no actual solutions !
No one wins...and WE ALL loose !
Yes so was there actually a solution in any of the handbags that were being thrown?
We already had an effing thread that decided this was the issue so it's not up for debate. The premise of the thread is man made climate change is an issue, what can we do about it? "That is the question ! How much is man made climate change ? We are limited to the idea that that is an irrefutable fact ! But actual proof is lacking ! When there is little on no funding going to ascertain other causes , because of financial and political interests involved , its difficult to objectively tackle something with success !
Besides... a debate based on an assumed single premise is not very logical or scientific to discuss is it ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of course carbon is natural we are carbon based life forms .Burning fossil fuels is not natural and effects the carbon cycle. For the many years the oceans have been our saviour by absorbing carbon,but thats begining to change and time is running out. The oceans are by far the largest carbon sink in the world. Some 93 percent of carbon dioxide is stored in algae, vegetation, and coral under the sea. But oceans are not able to absorb all of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels. In fact, a recent study suggests that the oceans have absorbed a smaller proportion of fossil-fuel emissions, nearly 10 percent less, since 2000.The reason is based in part on simple chemistry. Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide have turned waters more acidic, especially nearer to the poles. While carbon dioxide dissolves more readily in cold, dense seawater, these waters are less capable of sequestering the gas as the ocean becomes more acidic. .
Facts facts facts... Have you forgotten? how important opinion is as well?.
The world changes, things change, weather changes, climate changes, sun activity changes, orbit changes.
The only thing that doesn't, is human dogmatic belief in not changing
For once you are right !
Now.... apply that thought to the consensus crowd ! You are hard work Tony. The scientific consensus says Darwin is correct yet millions believe in creationism and Adam and Eve.In the USA many want to teach creationism alongside evolution .Even the vice president advocates this.is that a world you wish to live...? Science denialism is through social media will finish this civilsation off.You my friend will be part of this destruction.You complain about the medieval mind set of muslims.You unfortunately are no better.
Well Bob ... we have different opinions and views on certain issues and on this thread we have actually agreed on others!
We both care for the enviroment, but have different perspectives on it , so be it your way or mine, what would be great is that more people were ACTUALLY doing something about it !
This is why I consider myself a pragmatic environmentalist , and defend separating environmental care/recovery and sustainability from "Climate change" debate !
As we have seen on here ,when both are bundled up , we get nothing more then a heated argument , but no actual solutions !
No one wins...and WE ALL loose ! "No you win tony.Its your world anyway.People like you have taken over the internet with pseudoscience, facts are no longer relevant .If im honest i gave up on humanity long ago.Let it all burn. .. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of course carbon is natural we are carbon based life forms .Burning fossil fuels is not natural and effects the carbon cycle. For the many years the oceans have been our saviour by absorbing carbon,but thats begining to change and time is running out. The oceans are by far the largest carbon sink in the world. Some 93 percent of carbon dioxide is stored in algae, vegetation, and coral under the sea. But oceans are not able to absorb all of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels. In fact, a recent study suggests that the oceans have absorbed a smaller proportion of fossil-fuel emissions, nearly 10 percent less, since 2000.The reason is based in part on simple chemistry. Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide have turned waters more acidic, especially nearer to the poles. While carbon dioxide dissolves more readily in cold, dense seawater, these waters are less capable of sequestering the gas as the ocean becomes more acidic. .
Facts facts facts... Have you forgotten? how important opinion is as well?.
The world changes, things change, weather changes, climate changes, sun activity changes, orbit changes.
The only thing that doesn't, is human dogmatic belief in not changing
For once you are right !
Now.... apply that thought to the consensus crowd ! You are hard work Tony. The scientific consensus says Darwin is correct yet millions believe in creationism and Adam and Eve.In the USA many want to teach creationism alongside evolution .Even the vice president advocates this.is that a world you wish to live...? Science denialism is through social media will finish this civilsation off.You my friend will be part of this destruction.You complain about the medieval mind set of muslims.You unfortunately are no better.
Well Bob ... we have different opinions and views on certain issues and on this thread we have actually agreed on others!
We both care for the enviroment, but have different perspectives on it , so be it your way or mine, what would be great is that more people were ACTUALLY doing something about it !
This is why I consider myself a pragmatic environmentalist , and defend separating environmental care/recovery and sustainability from "Climate change" debate !
As we have seen on here ,when both are bundled up , we get nothing more then a heated argument , but no actual solutions !
No one wins...and WE ALL loose ! No you win tony.Its your world anyway.People like you have taken over the internet with pseudoscience, facts are no longer relevant .If im honest i gave up on humanity long ago.Let it all burn. .. "I havnt ! I have two sons ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of course carbon is natural we are carbon based life forms .Burning fossil fuels is not natural and effects the carbon cycle. For the many years the oceans have been our saviour by absorbing carbon,but thats begining to change and time is running out. The oceans are by far the largest carbon sink in the world. Some 93 percent of carbon dioxide is stored in algae, vegetation, and coral under the sea. But oceans are not able to absorb all of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels. In fact, a recent study suggests that the oceans have absorbed a smaller proportion of fossil-fuel emissions, nearly 10 percent less, since 2000.The reason is based in part on simple chemistry. Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide have turned waters more acidic, especially nearer to the poles. While carbon dioxide dissolves more readily in cold, dense seawater, these waters are less capable of sequestering the gas as the ocean becomes more acidic. .
Facts facts facts... Have you forgotten? how important opinion is as well?.
The world changes, things change, weather changes, climate changes, sun activity changes, orbit changes.
The only thing that doesn't, is human dogmatic belief in not changing
For once you are right !
Now.... apply that thought to the consensus crowd ! You are hard work Tony. The scientific consensus says Darwin is correct yet millions believe in creationism and Adam and Eve.In the USA many want to teach creationism alongside evolution .Even the vice president advocates this.is that a world you wish to live...? Science denialism is through social media will finish this civilsation off.You my friend will be part of this destruction.You complain about the medieval mind set of muslims.You unfortunately are no better.
Well Bob ... we have different opinions and views on certain issues and on this thread we have actually agreed on others!
We both care for the enviroment, but have different perspectives on it , so be it your way or mine, what would be great is that more people were ACTUALLY doing something about it !
This is why I consider myself a pragmatic environmentalist , and defend separating environmental care/recovery and sustainability from "Climate change" debate !
As we have seen on here ,when both are bundled up , we get nothing more then a heated argument , but no actual solutions !
No one wins...and WE ALL loose ! No you win tony.Its your world anyway.People like you have taken over the internet with pseudoscience, facts are no longer relevant .If im honest i gave up on humanity long ago.Let it all burn. ..
I havnt ! I have two sons ! "I have a son and a daughter and still think its game over you win.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of course carbon is natural we are carbon based life forms .Burning fossil fuels is not natural and effects the carbon cycle. For the many years the oceans have been our saviour by absorbing carbon,but thats begining to change and time is running out. The oceans are by far the largest carbon sink in the world. Some 93 percent of carbon dioxide is stored in algae, vegetation, and coral under the sea. But oceans are not able to absorb all of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels. In fact, a recent study suggests that the oceans have absorbed a smaller proportion of fossil-fuel emissions, nearly 10 percent less, since 2000.The reason is based in part on simple chemistry. Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide have turned waters more acidic, especially nearer to the poles. While carbon dioxide dissolves more readily in cold, dense seawater, these waters are less capable of sequestering the gas as the ocean becomes more acidic. .
Facts facts facts... Have you forgotten? how important opinion is as well?.
The world changes, things change, weather changes, climate changes, sun activity changes, orbit changes.
The only thing that doesn't, is human dogmatic belief in not changing
For once you are right !
Now.... apply that thought to the consensus crowd ! You are hard work Tony. The scientific consensus says Darwin is correct yet millions believe in creationism and Adam and Eve.In the USA many want to teach creationism alongside evolution .Even the vice president advocates this.is that a world you wish to live...? Science denialism is through social media will finish this civilsation off.You my friend will be part of this destruction.You complain about the medieval mind set of muslims.You unfortunately are no better.
Well Bob ... we have different opinions and views on certain issues and on this thread we have actually agreed on others!
We both care for the enviroment, but have different perspectives on it , so be it your way or mine, what would be great is that more people were ACTUALLY doing something about it !
This is why I consider myself a pragmatic environmentalist , and defend separating environmental care/recovery and sustainability from "Climate change" debate !
As we have seen on here ,when both are bundled up , we get nothing more then a heated argument , but no actual solutions !
No one wins...and WE ALL loose ! No you win tony.Its your world anyway.People like you have taken over the internet with pseudoscience, facts are no longer relevant .If im honest i gave up on humanity long ago.Let it all burn. ..
I havnt ! I have two sons ! I have a son and a daughter and still think its game over you win..
"Lol... has the fat lady sang yet ?
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of course carbon is natural we are carbon based life forms .Burning fossil fuels is not natural and effects the carbon cycle. For the many years the oceans have been our saviour by absorbing carbon,but thats begining to change and time is running out. The oceans are by far the largest carbon sink in the world. Some 93 percent of carbon dioxide is stored in algae, vegetation, and coral under the sea. But oceans are not able to absorb all of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels. In fact, a recent study suggests that the oceans have absorbed a smaller proportion of fossil-fuel emissions, nearly 10 percent less, since 2000.The reason is based in part on simple chemistry. Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide have turned waters more acidic, especially nearer to the poles. While carbon dioxide dissolves more readily in cold, dense seawater, these waters are less capable of sequestering the gas as the ocean becomes more acidic. .
Facts facts facts... Have you forgotten? how important opinion is as well?.
The world changes, things change, weather changes, climate changes, sun activity changes, orbit changes.
The only thing that doesn't, is human dogmatic belief in not changing
For once you are right !
Now.... apply that thought to the consensus crowd ! You are hard work Tony. The scientific consensus says Darwin is correct yet millions believe in creationism and Adam and Eve.In the USA many want to teach creationism alongside evolution .Even the vice president advocates this.is that a world you wish to live...? Science denialism is through social media will finish this civilsation off.You my friend will be part of this destruction.You complain about the medieval mind set of muslims.You unfortunately are no better.
Well Bob ... we have different opinions and views on certain issues and on this thread we have actually agreed on others!
We both care for the enviroment, but have different perspectives on it , so be it your way or mine, what would be great is that more people were ACTUALLY doing something about it !
This is why I consider myself a pragmatic environmentalist , and defend separating environmental care/recovery and sustainability from "Climate change" debate !
As we have seen on here ,when both are bundled up , we get nothing more then a heated argument , but no actual solutions !
No one wins...and WE ALL loose !
Yes so was there actually a solution in any of the handbags that were being thrown?
We already had an effing thread that decided this was the issue so it's not up for debate. The premise of the thread is man made climate change is an issue, what can we do about it?
That is the question !
How much is man made climate change ?
We are limited to the idea that that is an irrefutable fact ! But actual proof is lacking !
When there is little on no funding going to ascertain other causes , because of financial and political interests involved , its difficult to objectively tackle something with success !
Besides... a debate based on an assumed single premise is not very logical or scientific to discuss is it ? "I don't know where you get the idea that no research is being done on other aspects of climate change - there have been numerous studies on the effects of methane, volcanic dust and aerosols and so on - these are included in the climate models which are also updated as new evidence emerges - that is how science works - however when the scientific concencus is that there is a serious issue developing we cannot just wait forever to take action - it will be proven if we hit dangerous temperature levels but by then it will be too late! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Rodge sort of sums up our position quite eloquently in this little ditty... https://youtu.be/Gv-yZ6sVeyw" Seen yours .... have a look at this one ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLXNiEd7axY | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of course carbon is natural we are carbon based life forms .Burning fossil fuels is not natural and effects the carbon cycle. For the many years the oceans have been our saviour by absorbing carbon,but thats begining to change and time is running out. The oceans are by far the largest carbon sink in the world. Some 93 percent of carbon dioxide is stored in algae, vegetation, and coral under the sea. But oceans are not able to absorb all of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels. In fact, a recent study suggests that the oceans have absorbed a smaller proportion of fossil-fuel emissions, nearly 10 percent less, since 2000.The reason is based in part on simple chemistry. Increased concentrations of carbon dioxide have turned waters more acidic, especially nearer to the poles. While carbon dioxide dissolves more readily in cold, dense seawater, these waters are less capable of sequestering the gas as the ocean becomes more acidic. .
Facts facts facts... Have you forgotten? how important opinion is as well?.
The world changes, things change, weather changes, climate changes, sun activity changes, orbit changes.
The only thing that doesn't, is human dogmatic belief in not changing
For once you are right !
Now.... apply that thought to the consensus crowd ! You are hard work Tony. The scientific consensus says Darwin is correct yet millions believe in creationism and Adam and Eve.In the USA many want to teach creationism alongside evolution .Even the vice president advocates this.is that a world you wish to live...? Science denialism is through social media will finish this civilsation off.You my friend will be part of this destruction.You complain about the medieval mind set of muslims.You unfortunately are no better.
Well Bob ... we have different opinions and views on certain issues and on this thread we have actually agreed on others!
We both care for the enviroment, but have different perspectives on it , so be it your way or mine, what would be great is that more people were ACTUALLY doing something about it !
This is why I consider myself a pragmatic environmentalist , and defend separating environmental care/recovery and sustainability from "Climate change" debate !
As we have seen on here ,when both are bundled up , we get nothing more then a heated argument , but no actual solutions !
No one wins...and WE ALL loose !
Yes so was there actually a solution in any of the handbags that were being thrown?
We already had an effing thread that decided this was the issue so it's not up for debate. The premise of the thread is man made climate change is an issue, what can we do about it? ". You know why I'd make a great dictator?. I'm more than willing to put a bullet in his head ..
I know I know that makes me a bad person but honestly I don't care, he's a fucking knob end that deserves shooting you and I both know it.
I struggle with this only by historical context, I mean you start of putting a bullet in the head of those that deserve it but you end just shooting everybody who you dislike...,I still say it's better than the current system, although you will disagree and call me a right wing fascist! .
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Rodge sort of sums up our position quite eloquently in this little ditty... https://youtu.be/Gv-yZ6sVeyw" Or these !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Smhn1gL6Xg
Or this ....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM
or this ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C35pasCr6KI | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tony just in case your not sure.. Its you I'm willing to shoot in the head, its not that I dislike you, your just obsolete, your a fucking halfwit who cant see past his nose, your idea of science is infant like at best (although you seem to grasp the realities of weapons????) I dunno maybe you think high powered weapons were dreamt up by deniers?. Anyhow your all right but I'm more than willing to terminate you for the sake of humanity unlike these cunts who will just argue with you constantly and get fucking nowhere... I'm the Isis of climate change "Isis of climate change ! lol...
I love that ! It suits you , seeing as you already proven to be a fundamentalist of Pseudo science !
Congratulations, you have proved my point !
One cant debate a cult member ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I tried to say it in a nice way but honesty how many ways is there to say your a cunt and you deserve to die.. One maybe two, I'm no expert but on this I'm with Lenin.. You can spend forever arguing or you can Just fucking execute them" Wow that didn't give you time to watch, my vids ! Not that you would want to see what real scientists have to say ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tony just in case your not sure.. Its you I'm willing to shoot in the head, its not that I dislike you, your just obsolete, your a fucking halfwit who cant see past his nose, your idea of science is infant like at best (although you seem to grasp the realities of weapons????) I dunno maybe you think high powered weapons were dreamt up by deniers?. Anyhow your all right but I'm more than willing to terminate you for the sake of humanity unlike these cunts who will just argue with you constantly and get fucking nowhere... I'm the Isis of climate change
Isis of climate change ! lol...
I love that ! It suits you , seeing as you already proven to be a fundamentalist of Pseudo science !
Congratulations, you have proved my point !
One cant debate a cult member ! ". Well honestly I can see their point of view! There is no solution to this predicament, only shooting people in the head... It won't cure it but it will make me feel better knowing that the halfwits died before me | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I tried to say it in a nice way but honesty how many ways is there to say your a cunt and you deserve to die.. One maybe two, I'm no expert but on this I'm with Lenin.. You can spend forever arguing or you can Just fucking execute them Wow that didn't give you time to watch, my vids ! Not that you would want to see what real scientists have to say ! ". I'm not interested in anything you say, your half an hour of bollocks is enough to convince me you need to be shot in the head and the sooner the better, like I said it's not that I dislike you, your just as problem I can't afford to waste time on | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tony just in case your not sure.. Its you I'm willing to shoot in the head, its not that I dislike you, your just obsolete, your a fucking halfwit who cant see past his nose, your idea of science is infant like at best (although you seem to grasp the realities of weapons????) I dunno maybe you think high powered weapons were dreamt up by deniers?. Anyhow your all right but I'm more than willing to terminate you for the sake of humanity unlike these cunts who will just argue with you constantly and get fucking nowhere... I'm the Isis of climate change
Isis of climate change ! lol...
I love that ! It suits you , seeing as you already proven to be a fundamentalist of Pseudo science !
Congratulations, you have proved my point !
One cant debate a cult member ! .
Well honestly I can see their point of view!
There is no solution to this predicament, only shooting people in the head... It won't cure it but it will make me feel better knowing that the halfwits died before me "Yes, I get you ... that's how I feel about Isis too !
Let me know if you need weapons training!
Any specific weapon in mind ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As dear old Joey would say, I've been on the vino again "That ok ! chill watching these !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Lye5liWuZw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPP7P43wulg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NlaSe0Kydw
Enjoy ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I tried to say it in a nice way but honesty how many ways is there to say your a cunt and you deserve to die.. One maybe two, I'm no expert but on this I'm with Lenin.. You can spend forever arguing or you can Just fucking execute them Wow that didn't give you time to watch, my vids ! Not that you would want to see what real scientists have to say ! .
I'm not interested in anything you say, your half an hour of bollocks is enough to convince me you need to be shot in the head and the sooner the better, like I said it's not that I dislike you, your just as problem I can't afford to waste time on"Climate change deniers are a benefit in the long term for the planet.They'll get us closer and quicker to the edge and help cleanse the planet of homo sapiens.Which after all has been said is the final solution to climate change.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
.
I've taken a rational logical approach looking at facts alone and come to the conclusion that people like him will be a disaster for this world in the end, that's exactly what he's been asking for since he came on here.
Never talks about empathy and compassion being part of the solution, so why moan now?.
Oh yes I forgot, its a tough strong leader making decisions on his life... Big difference.. Now were all for following the law, showing compassion and empathy and he's probably in favour of taking my guns off me
Philosophically speaking be thinks Muslims are stuck in bad and dangerous ideology that will risk his existence and way of life..
Take all the world's dictators and bad guys, most of them started off with good intentions.
I'm not religious myself but there's never been a truer saying for that road to hell.
So here's my advise to all the politics forumites... Stop trying to fix the world and instead try to fix yourself! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tonys opinions are of the minority within academic circles and are of the majority amongst the general public.They wont change.Why should they change for an imaginary threat.. Millions of tonys can't be wrong.We should let it all burn and start again with a smaller population.From the ashes of the old world we can start again. ". Theres nothing wrong with capitalism or Communism, its the people that are fucked up. Give some devout monks all of bill gates wealth and there'll spend it wisely or not at all. Religion isn't good or bad its just an abstract construct that people will fuck up on. Were always changing things trying to pretend it will be for the better, tax rules, borders, trade barriers, immigration. I spend a lifetime trying to save the planet or the greenbelt or Society, it took me a long time to realise it was me that needed saving. I no longer want to be the climate change nut who wishes to proselyte about your impending demise, coz I can't save you from you!I realise that now | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tonys opinions are of the minority within academic circles and are of the majority amongst the general public.They wont change.Why should they change for an imaginary threat.. Millions of tonys can't be wrong.We should let it all burn and start again with a smaller population.From the ashes of the old world we can start again. .
Theres nothing wrong with capitalism or Communism, its the people that are fucked up.
Give some devout monks all of bill gates wealth and there'll spend it wisely or not at all.
Religion isn't good or bad its just an abstract construct that people will fuck up on.
Were always changing things trying to pretend it will be for the better, tax rules, borders, trade barriers, immigration.
I spend a lifetime trying to save the planet or the greenbelt or Society, it took me a long time to realise it was me that needed saving.
I no longer want to be the climate change nut who wishes to proselyte about your impending demise, coz I can't save you from you!I realise that now "I plan on finding a quite spot on earth to watch the fireworks and look after myself and those i give a fuck about.The rest can fucking burn. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tonys opinions are of the minority within academic circles and are of the majority amongst the general public.They wont change.Why should they change for an imaginary threat.. Millions of tonys can't be wrong.We should let it all burn and start again with a smaller population.From the ashes of the old world we can start again. .
Theres nothing wrong with capitalism or Communism, its the people that are fucked up.
Give some devout monks all of bill gates wealth and there'll spend it wisely or not at all.
Religion isn't good or bad its just an abstract construct that people will fuck up on.
Were always changing things trying to pretend it will be for the better, tax rules, borders, trade barriers, immigration.
I spend a lifetime trying to save the planet or the greenbelt or Society, it took me a long time to realise it was me that needed saving.
I no longer want to be the climate change nut who wishes to proselyte about your impending demise, coz I can't save you from you!I realise that now I plan on finding a quite spot on earth to watch the fireworks and look after myself and those i give a fuck about.The rest can fucking burn. ". I've already found my spot | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tonys opinions are of the minority within academic circles and are of the majority amongst the general public.They wont change.Why should they change for an imaginary threat.. Millions of tonys can't be wrong.We should let it all burn and start again with a smaller population.From the ashes of the old world we can start again. .
Theres nothing wrong with capitalism or Communism, its the people that are fucked up.
Give some devout monks all of bill gates wealth and there'll spend it wisely or not at all.
Religion isn't good or bad its just an abstract construct that people will fuck up on.
Were always changing things trying to pretend it will be for the better, tax rules, borders, trade barriers, immigration.
I spend a lifetime trying to save the planet or the greenbelt or Society, it took me a long time to realise it was me that needed saving.
I no longer want to be the climate change nut who wishes to proselyte about your impending demise, coz I can't save you from you!I realise that now I plan on finding a quite spot on earth to watch the fireworks and look after myself and those i give a fuck about.The rest can fucking burn. .
I've already found my spot "Anglesey or some place more exotic like New Zealand
I plan on sailing around the world til i find a safe spot.I like to be mobile if shit gets real . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tonys opinions are of the minority within academic circles and are of the majority amongst the general public.They wont change.Why should they change for an imaginary threat.. Millions of tonys can't be wrong.We should let it all burn and start again with a smaller population.From the ashes of the old world we can start again. .
Theres nothing wrong with capitalism or Communism, its the people that are fucked up.
Give some devout monks all of bill gates wealth and there'll spend it wisely or not at all.
Religion isn't good or bad its just an abstract construct that people will fuck up on.
Were always changing things trying to pretend it will be for the better, tax rules, borders, trade barriers, immigration.
I spend a lifetime trying to save the planet or the greenbelt or Society, it took me a long time to realise it was me that needed saving.
I no longer want to be the climate change nut who wishes to proselyte about your impending demise, coz I can't save you from you!I realise that now I plan on finding a quite spot on earth to watch the fireworks and look after myself and those i give a fuck about.The rest can fucking burn. .
I've already found my spot Anglesey or some place more exotic like New Zealand
I plan on sailing around the world til i find a safe spot.I like to be mobile if shit gets real .". Well i had two choices. Live on on my own Or die with someone I love I'm ashamed to say I had to think about it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tonys opinions are of the minority within academic circles and are of the majority amongst the general public.They wont change.Why should they change for an imaginary threat.. Millions of tonys can't be wrong.We should let it all burn and start again with a smaller population.From the ashes of the old world we can start again. .
Theres nothing wrong with capitalism or Communism, its the people that are fucked up.
Give some devout monks all of bill gates wealth and there'll spend it wisely or not at all.
Religion isn't good or bad its just an abstract construct that people will fuck up on.
Were always changing things trying to pretend it will be for the better, tax rules, borders, trade barriers, immigration.
I spend a lifetime trying to save the planet or the greenbelt or Society, it took me a long time to realise it was me that needed saving.
I no longer want to be the climate change nut who wishes to proselyte about your impending demise, coz I can't save you from you!I realise that now I plan on finding a quite spot on earth to watch the fireworks and look after myself and those i give a fuck about.The rest can fucking burn. .
I've already found my spot Anglesey or some place more exotic like New Zealand
I plan on sailing around the world til i find a safe spot.I like to be mobile if shit gets real ..
Well i had two choices.
Live on on my own
Or die with someone I love
I'm ashamed to say I had to think about it "I Choose life. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"He has wanted tough leaders wanting and willing to take tough decisions for the benefit of the country, he advocates rational logical arguments against muslims/left wingers/black/poor/benefit. He's always saying it's time to think outside the box and look at the alternative solution for these things!. Well here I am, I'm a product of Tony's ideology .
I've taken a rational logical approach looking at facts alone and come to the conclusion that people like him will be a disaster for this world in the end, that's exactly what he's been asking for since he came on here.
Never talks about empathy and compassion being part of the solution, so why moan now?.
Oh yes I forgot, its a tough strong leader making decisions on his life... Big difference.. Now were all for following the law, showing compassion and empathy and he's probably in favour of taking my guns off me
Philosophically speaking be thinks Muslims are stuck in bad and dangerous ideology that will risk his existence and way of life..
Take all the world's dictators and bad guys, most of them started off with good intentions.
I'm not religious myself but there's never been a truer saying for that road to hell.
So here's my advise to all the politics forumites... Stop trying to fix the world and instead try to fix yourself!"WOW ! What a post !
It confirms my suspicions !
Your nick really does define you well ! Sick...Boy !
It also confirms my notion that "climate change" has become a religion , and its defenders act like cult members !
The sign of an extremist or fanatic are all there !
-Total rejection of different opinions and willingness to even look at any evidence presented !
Here is a defenition;
"noun
1.
a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.
Synonyms
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
1. enthusiast, zealot, bigot, hothead, militant. Fanatic, zealot, militant, devotee refer to persons showing more than ordinary support for, adherence to, or interest in a cause, point of view, or activity. Fanatic and zealot both suggest excessive or overweening devotion to a cause or belief. Fanatic further implies unbalanced or obsessive behavior: a wild-eyed fanatic. Zealot, only slightly less unfavorable in implication than fanatic, implies single-minded partisanship: a tireless zealot for tax reform. Militant stresses vigorous, aggressive support for or opposition to a plan or ideal and suggests a combative stance. Devotee is a milder term than any of the foregoing, suggesting enthusiasm but not to the exclusion of other interests or possible points of view: a jazz devotee. "
Seems your post is a form of projection ! Its really about you ...not me !
So, lets see :
"He has wanted tough leaders wanting and willing to take tough decisions for the benefit of the country, he advocates rational logical arguments against muslims/left wingers/black/poor/benefit.
He's always saying it's time to think outside the box and look at the alternative solution for these things!.
Well here I am, I'm a product of Tony's ideology ."
Its my fault he is how /what he is?
This is after summarising what he thinks I stand for !
then he rants on :
"I've taken a rational logical approach looking at facts alone and come to the conclusion that people like him will be a disaster for this world in the end, that's exactly what he's been asking for since he came on here.
Never talks about empathy and compassion being part of the solution, so why moan now?."
This coming from a person that posted :
"You know why I'd make a great dictator?.
I'm more than willing to put a bullet in his head ..
I know I know that makes me a bad person but honestly I don't care, he's a fucking knob end that deserves shooting you and I both know it.
I struggle with this only by historical context, I mean you start of putting a bullet in the head of those that deserve it but you end just shooting everybody who you dislike...,I still say it's better than the current system, although you will disagree and call me a right wing fascist! ."
Followed by this ;
"Tony just in case your not sure.. Its you I'm willing to shoot in the head, its not that I dislike you, your just obsolete, your a fucking halfwit who cant see past his nose, your idea of science is infant like at best (although you seem to grasp the realities of weapons????) I dunno maybe you think high powered weapons were dreamt up by deniers?.
Anyhow your all right but I'm more than willing to terminate you for the sake of humanity unlike these cunts who will just argue with you constantly and get fucking nowhere... I'm the Isis of climate change "
Then continues :
"I tried to say it in a nice way but honesty how many ways is there to say your a cunt and you deserve to die.. One maybe two, I'm no expert but on this I'm with Lenin.. You can spend forever arguing or you can
Just fucking execute them"
And more....
"Well honestly I can see their point of view!
There is no solution to this predicament, only shooting people in the head... It won't cure it but it will make me feel better knowing that the halfwits died before me "
More....
"I'm not interested in anything you say, your half an hour of bollocks is enough to convince me you need to be shot in the head and the sooner the better, like I said it's not that I dislike you, your just as problem I can't afford to waste time on"
So ... after all that , its me that ;
"Never talks about empathy and compassion being part of the solution, so why moan now?. "
If I was a lesser person , I might actually consider these as death threats ! and even be in my right to report them as such !
But I understand I am dealing with an unbalanced irrational individual who has actually named himself SICK BOY !
So I suggest he seek treatment , before these rants become reality .
Then this ;
"So here's my advise to all the politics forumites... Stop trying to fix the world and instead try to fix yourself!"
If only you would take your own advice ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
  .
Adeus baby   | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well if nothing else it made you think Tony and that's not an easy thing to achieve so that's a result!. As you would say .
Adeus baby "Lol.... are you referring to yourself AGAIN then projecting on me? Must be , cause fanatics and fundamentalist don't usually think or even tolerate thought , cause that might collide with their beliefs !
You must have put a lot of "thought" into proclaiming yourself "the isis of climate change" and repeatedly rant on putting a bullet in my head !
It takes an "intelligent" person to repeatedly say they want me dead..... all because they lost it as a result of me questioning their views !
I wonder how many posters on here find that intelligent civilized or acceptable ?
I would dare say not many ..... judging by the lack of response or comment! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well if nothing else it made you think Tony and that's not an easy thing to achieve so that's a result!. As you would say .
Adeus baby
Lol.... are you referring to yourself AGAIN then projecting on me?
Must be , cause fanatics and fundamentalist don't usually think or even tolerate thought , cause that might collide with their beliefs !
You must have put a lot of "thought" into proclaiming yourself "the isis of climate change" and repeatedly rant on putting a bullet in my head !
It takes an "intelligent" person to repeatedly say they want me dead..... all because they lost it as a result of me questioning their views !
I wonder how many posters on here find that intelligent civilized or acceptable ?
I would dare say not many ..... judging by the lack of response or comment! ". No that's because nobody likes you, I'm just being truthful, hey nobody likes me either, its a cruel world toe. I never put much effort into anything I say to you to be honest, mostly d*unken rantings .
Don't big yourself up to much toe, your just an annoying irksome itch that I can't be arsed to scratch.. Besides I'm working on me zen.
Adeus | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well if nothing else it made you think Tony and that's not an easy thing to achieve so that's a result!. As you would say .
Adeus baby
Lol.... are you referring to yourself AGAIN then projecting on me?
Must be , cause fanatics and fundamentalist don't usually think or even tolerate thought , cause that might collide with their beliefs !
You must have put a lot of "thought" into proclaiming yourself "the isis of climate change" and repeatedly rant on putting a bullet in my head !
It takes an "intelligent" person to repeatedly say they want me dead..... all because they lost it as a result of me questioning their views !
I wonder how many posters on here find that intelligent civilized or acceptable ?
I would dare say not many ..... judging by the lack of response or comment! .
No that's because nobody likes you, I'm just being truthful, hey nobody likes me either, its a cruel world toe.
I never put much effort into anything I say to you to be honest, mostly d*unken rantings .
Don't big yourself up to much toe, your just an annoying irksome itch that I can't be arsed to scratch.. Besides I'm working on me zen.
Adeus "OH .... poor me ! nobody likes me !
I am so so upset !
I never realised this was a popularity contest !
Do you think I give a shit ?
If one emits an opinion , worrying about being PC or popular , then what is that opinion worth ?
Now.... that is a long way from threatening posters with a shot to the head because they don't agree with you!
D*unken rantings or not , it says a lot about you !
Opinions are like arse holes ! everybody has one .... but you seem to insist on being one! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well if nothing else it made you think Tony and that's not an easy thing to achieve so that's a result!. As you would say .
Adeus baby
Lol.... are you referring to yourself AGAIN then projecting on me?
Must be , cause fanatics and fundamentalist don't usually think or even tolerate thought , cause that might collide with their beliefs !
You must have put a lot of "thought" into proclaiming yourself "the isis of climate change" and repeatedly rant on putting a bullet in my head !
It takes an "intelligent" person to repeatedly say they want me dead..... all because they lost it as a result of me questioning their views !
I wonder how many posters on here find that intelligent civilized or acceptable ?
I would dare say not many ..... judging by the lack of response or comment! .
No that's because nobody likes you, I'm just being truthful, hey nobody likes me either, its a cruel world toe.
I never put much effort into anything I say to you to be honest, mostly d*unken rantings .
Don't big yourself up to much toe, your just an annoying irksome itch that I can't be arsed to scratch.. Besides I'm working on me zen.
Adeus
OH .... poor me ! nobody likes me !
I am so so upset !
I never realised this was a popularity contest !
Do you think I give a shit ?
If one emits an opinion , worrying about being PC or popular , then what is that opinion worth ?
Now.... that is a long way from threatening posters with a shot to the head because they don't agree with you!
D*unken rantings or not , it says a lot about you !
Opinions are like arse holes ! everybody has one .... but you seem to insist on being one! ". Well I don't like being a dick and I'm working on not being one! You should give it a whirl sometime. I'm glad you've finally twigged that everything you wrote on here is actually an opinion and not a fact, climate scientists are full of opinions, everybody is, but they don't get too examine and write down theirs, they only get to write down evidence, facts and observations and then crazyness?like another scientist checks them to see if there accurate (madness they should just use YouTube I know it's so much quicker). Then some people (normal people) form opinions on those facts, these opinions are still opinions but they carry more weight than the utter drivel that falls out of a mouth that just watches YouTube and doesn't even posses school boy physics to form an opinion (that you by the way). To be fair lots of other people do the same as you but there just less dickish by nature so probably disliked less. The good news is its all reversible unlike climate change, you just have to want to change yourself | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well if nothing else it made you think Tony and that's not an easy thing to achieve so that's a result!. As you would say .
Adeus baby
Lol.... are you referring to yourself AGAIN then projecting on me?
Must be , cause fanatics and fundamentalist don't usually think or even tolerate thought , cause that might collide with their beliefs !
You must have put a lot of "thought" into proclaiming yourself "the isis of climate change" and repeatedly rant on putting a bullet in my head !
It takes an "intelligent" person to repeatedly say they want me dead..... all because they lost it as a result of me questioning their views !
I wonder how many posters on here find that intelligent civilized or acceptable ?
I would dare say not many ..... judging by the lack of response or comment! .
No that's because nobody likes you, I'm just being truthful, hey nobody likes me either, its a cruel world toe.
I never put much effort into anything I say to you to be honest, mostly d*unken rantings .
Don't big yourself up to much toe, your just an annoying irksome itch that I can't be arsed to scratch.. Besides I'm working on me zen.
Adeus
OH .... poor me ! nobody likes me !
I am so so upset !
I never realised this was a popularity contest !
Do you think I give a shit ?
If one emits an opinion , worrying about being PC or popular , then what is that opinion worth ?
Now.... that is a long way from threatening posters with a shot to the head because they don't agree with you!
D*unken rantings or not , it says a lot about you !
Opinions are like arse holes ! everybody has one .... but you seem to insist on being one! .
Well I don't like being a dick and I'm working on not being one!
You should give it a whirl sometime.
I'm glad you've finally twigged that everything you wrote on here is actually an opinion and not a fact, climate scientists are full of opinions, everybody is, but they don't get too examine and write down theirs, they only get to write down evidence, facts and observations and then crazyness?like another scientist checks them to see if there accurate (madness they should just use YouTube I know it's so much quicker).
Then some people (normal people) form opinions on those facts, these opinions are still opinions but they carry more weight than the utter drivel that falls out of a mouth that just watches YouTube and doesn't even posses school boy physics to form an opinion (that you by the way).
To be fair lots of other people do the same as you but there just less dickish by nature so probably disliked less.
The good news is its all reversible unlike climate change, you just have to want to change yourself"mmm...seems you conveniently got it wrong! My opinion comment was about your rants ,not climate change! But you contradict yourself ! If climate change is, as you say, not reversible , then why are the climate loonies trying to reduce Co2 emissions? Lets not forget that C02 is not a pollutant, but fundamental element of life ! A stupid effort as reducing C02 would have serious repercussions for nature and humanity ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well if nothing else it made you think Tony and that's not an easy thing to achieve so that's a result!. As you would say .
Adeus baby
Lol.... are you referring to yourself AGAIN then projecting on me?
Must be , cause fanatics and fundamentalist don't usually think or even tolerate thought , cause that might collide with their beliefs !
You must have put a lot of "thought" into proclaiming yourself "the isis of climate change" and repeatedly rant on putting a bullet in my head !
It takes an "intelligent" person to repeatedly say they want me dead..... all because they lost it as a result of me questioning their views !
I wonder how many posters on here find that intelligent civilized or acceptable ?
I would dare say not many ..... judging by the lack of response or comment! .
No that's because nobody likes you, I'm just being truthful, hey nobody likes me either, its a cruel world toe.
I never put much effort into anything I say to you to be honest, mostly d*unken rantings .
Don't big yourself up to much toe, your just an annoying irksome itch that I can't be arsed to scratch.. Besides I'm working on me zen.
Adeus
OH .... poor me ! nobody likes me !
I am so so upset !
I never realised this was a popularity contest !
Do you think I give a shit ?
If one emits an opinion , worrying about being PC or popular , then what is that opinion worth ?
Now.... that is a long way from threatening posters with a shot to the head because they don't agree with you!
D*unken rantings or not , it says a lot about you !
Opinions are like arse holes ! everybody has one .... but you seem to insist on being one! .
Well I don't like being a dick and I'm working on not being one!
You should give it a whirl sometime.
I'm glad you've finally twigged that everything you wrote on here is actually an opinion and not a fact, climate scientists are full of opinions, everybody is, but they don't get too examine and write down theirs, they only get to write down evidence, facts and observations and then crazyness?like another scientist checks them to see if there accurate (madness they should just use YouTube I know it's so much quicker).
Then some people (normal people) form opinions on those facts, these opinions are still opinions but they carry more weight than the utter drivel that falls out of a mouth that just watches YouTube and doesn't even posses school boy physics to form an opinion (that you by the way).
To be fair lots of other people do the same as you but there just less dickish by nature so probably disliked less.
The good news is its all reversible unlike climate change, you just have to want to change yourself
mmm...seems you conveniently got it wrong!
My opinion comment was about your rants ,not climate change!
But you contradict yourself !
If climate change is, as you say, not reversible , then why are the climate loonies trying to reduce Co2 emissions?
Lets not forget that C02 is not a pollutant, but fundamental element of life !
A stupid effort as reducing C02 would have serious repercussions for nature and humanity ! ". This is why I rant toe,I just don't have the patience to keep explaining to you the definition of a pollutant!. Here's an idea, take a plastic bag put it over your head,tape it tight around your neck and see after about 1 minute whether you think c02 is still great for you!. Don't forget to get back to me with the result | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well if nothing else it made you think Tony and that's not an easy thing to achieve so that's a result!. As you would say .
Adeus baby
Lol.... are you referring to yourself AGAIN then projecting on me?
Must be , cause fanatics and fundamentalist don't usually think or even tolerate thought , cause that might collide with their beliefs !
You must have put a lot of "thought" into proclaiming yourself "the isis of climate change" and repeatedly rant on putting a bullet in my head !
It takes an "intelligent" person to repeatedly say they want me dead..... all because they lost it as a result of me questioning their views !
I wonder how many posters on here find that intelligent civilized or acceptable ?
I would dare say not many ..... judging by the lack of response or comment! .
No that's because nobody likes you, I'm just being truthful, hey nobody likes me either, its a cruel world toe.
I never put much effort into anything I say to you to be honest, mostly d*unken rantings .
Don't big yourself up to much toe, your just an annoying irksome itch that I can't be arsed to scratch.. Besides I'm working on me zen.
Adeus
OH .... poor me ! nobody likes me !
I am so so upset !
I never realised this was a popularity contest !
Do you think I give a shit ?
If one emits an opinion , worrying about being PC or popular , then what is that opinion worth ?
Now.... that is a long way from threatening posters with a shot to the head because they don't agree with you!
D*unken rantings or not , it says a lot about you !
Opinions are like arse holes ! everybody has one .... but you seem to insist on being one! .
Well I don't like being a dick and I'm working on not being one!
You should give it a whirl sometime.
I'm glad you've finally twigged that everything you wrote on here is actually an opinion and not a fact, climate scientists are full of opinions, everybody is, but they don't get too examine and write down theirs, they only get to write down evidence, facts and observations and then crazyness?like another scientist checks them to see if there accurate (madness they should just use YouTube I know it's so much quicker).
Then some people (normal people) form opinions on those facts, these opinions are still opinions but they carry more weight than the utter drivel that falls out of a mouth that just watches YouTube and doesn't even posses school boy physics to form an opinion (that you by the way).
To be fair lots of other people do the same as you but there just less dickish by nature so probably disliked less.
The good news is its all reversible unlike climate change, you just have to want to change yourself
mmm...seems you conveniently got it wrong!
My opinion comment was about your rants ,not climate change!
But you contradict yourself !
If climate change is, as you say, not reversible , then why are the climate loonies trying to reduce Co2 emissions?
Lets not forget that C02 is not a pollutant, but fundamental element of life !
A stupid effort as reducing C02 would have serious repercussions for nature and humanity ! .
This is why I rant toe,I just don't have the patience to keep explaining to you the definition of a pollutant!.
Here's an idea, take a plastic bag put it over your head,tape it tight around your neck and see after about 1 minute whether you think c02 is still great for you!.
Don't forget to get back to me with the result "Lol.... stop deflecting ! So plants breath pollutants? Here is an experiment that shows without suggesting killing anybody , how important C02 is ! Take two equal green houses with same sized plants ! One has the current odd 400 PPM , but in the other you triple that to 1200 PPM! Which one will see more plant growth and productivity ? https://www.co2meter.com/pages/greenhouse-indoor-gardening-hydroponics Sorry ! I know you hate facts ! Interesting notion ..... pollution grows the food you eat .... You are probably one of those loonies who thinks that reducing co2 to half the current levels is a good thing ! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" " . During this experiment with c02 at 1400 ppm did they also happen by chance to control the water to them and the temperature..I bet they did!. See that's what you want to grow stuff, you want to control the climate don't you?. Now imagine if they couldn't control the temperature or the water and the wildlife to pollinate them and the microbes in the soil and the fungus and everything else in between.. That's called the earth and its climate once c02 has fucked it up by making it warmer, its not that hard to grasp toe, your almost half way there. It don't matter how much c02 you put in your greenhouse once the water and the temperature and everything else has gone... So do the plants, that's why we call it a bio sphere BECAUSE everything relies on everything else!... Take one thing out of the equation and kaboom it all goes tits pretty quick | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" " . By your logic and facts everything needs water so we could just flood the earth and thered be plants everywhere.. Oh wait they need soil to, oh bugger, its like this plant needs more than one thing to grow!. If only somebody had taught me that in primary school, wait they did mmm Did you go to primary school toe, or did you bunk off with your guns having a wank | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
