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 |
"Whilst yes we do affect it abit but most of it is the natural cycle there have been extreme weather before we was here."  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whilst yes we do affect it abit but most of it is the natural cycle there have been extreme weather before we was here." Shag - you have discussed this before. The current cycle is man made. It is different to the natural cycles which will continue to occur. This is not part of the natural cycles | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Following on from a previous thread... Is climate change a conspiracy theory used to attract people to political agendas? Are people like Leonardo DiCaprio being hoaxed out of their money? Or are we at the edge of the point in history where the planet could have been saved from extinction but were too stupid/ignorant/apathetic to care? Are our leaders stuffing their pockets with industrialists money or are they genuinely trying to change things?" . According to the science the climate has risen 0.9 degrees since 1880 with most of that coming in the last 40 years, of that the vast majority has a high probability of being anthropogenic. There's very little science that the planet is going extinct anytime soon. The estimated warming to 2100 is between 1.5 degrees (not bad) to 4 degrees (bad). Most people are trying to change things, we currently spend 4 trillion dollars a year (globally) on combating and researching climate change. Only today drax has asked for the current 2 million pound a day subsidy from the UK gov to roll on from 2027 to 2030 to enable it to become carbon neutral by then. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Following on from a previous thread... Is climate change a conspiracy theory used to attract people to political agendas? Are people like Leonardo DiCaprio being hoaxed out of their money? Or are we at the edge of the point in history where the planet could have been saved from extinction but were too stupid/ignorant/apathetic to care? Are our leaders stuffing their pockets with industrialists money or are they genuinely trying to change things?. According to the science the climate has risen 0.9 degrees since 1880 with most of that coming in the last 40 years, of that the vast majority has a high probability of being anthropogenic. There's very little science that the planet is going extinct anytime soon. The estimated warming to 2100 is between 1.5 degrees (not bad) to 4 degrees (bad). Most people are trying to change things, we currently spend 4 trillion dollars a year (globally) on combating and researching climate change. Only today drax has asked for the current 2 million pound a day subsidy from the UK gov to roll on from 2027 to 2030 to enable it to become carbon neutral by then. " When you say most people are trying to change things, are you aware of Donald Trump's stance on environmental issues vs the American economy? You are aware that USA is the largest producer of greenhouse gases. I'm reading a lot of articles that say that whereas 4° C was previously considered "very bad" level they've since revised that figure to 2°C. On the previous thread I mentioned a glacier with a 1000ft tall cavity, which should it melt cause 65cm rise in sea level. It holds back other glaciers that would raise the sea level 2.4 meters. This damage was done in 3 years at 0.9 °C. So how much damage will be done at 1.5°C? The problems do not start when the sea covers our rooftops. The problems start when displaced people start moving inland. When will start happening? It already is! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Following on from a previous thread... Is climate change a conspiracy theory used to attract people to political agendas? Are people like Leonardo DiCaprio being hoaxed out of their money? Or are we at the edge of the point in history where the planet could have been saved from extinction but were too stupid/ignorant/apathetic to care? Are our leaders stuffing their pockets with industrialists money or are they genuinely trying to change things?. According to the science the climate has risen 0.9 degrees since 1880 with most of that coming in the last 40 years, of that the vast majority has a high probability of being anthropogenic. There's very little science that the planet is going extinct anytime soon. The estimated warming to 2100 is between 1.5 degrees (not bad) to 4 degrees (bad). Most people are trying to change things, we currently spend 4 trillion dollars a year (globally) on combating and researching climate change. Only today drax has asked for the current 2 million pound a day subsidy from the UK gov to roll on from 2027 to 2030 to enable it to become carbon neutral by then. When you say most people are trying to change things, are you aware of Donald Trump's stance on environmental issues vs the American economy? You are aware that USA is the largest producer of greenhouse gases. I'm reading a lot of articles that say that whereas 4° C was previously considered "very bad" level they've since revised that figure to 2°C. On the previous thread I mentioned a glacier with a 1000ft tall cavity, which should it melt cause 65cm rise in sea level. It holds back other glaciers that would raise the sea level 2.4 meters. This damage was done in 3 years at 0.9 °C. So how much damage will be done at 1.5°C? The problems do not start when the sea covers our rooftops. The problems start when displaced people start moving inland. When will start happening? It already is!" . I'll make this quick because your needed at CERN. I'm aware of Donald trump and I'm also aware that the USA has reduced it's c02 emissions more than the EU every year for the last six years mainly from the transition from coal power to gas power despite trump some would say  and China actually is the biggest c02 emitter.
I've no idea what articles you read, I merely referenced the findings of the experts and the science of the IPCC,I do this because..
There's plenty of whacky nut jobs out there peddling all sorts of shit for there own political goals.
Thank goodness your not one of them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Following on from a previous thread... Is climate change a conspiracy theory used to attract people to political agendas? Are people like Leonardo DiCaprio being hoaxed out of their money? Or are we at the edge of the point in history where the planet could have been saved from extinction but were too stupid/ignorant/apathetic to care? Are our leaders stuffing their pockets with industrialists money or are they genuinely trying to change things?. According to the science the climate has risen 0.9 degrees since 1880 with most of that coming in the last 40 years, of that the vast majority has a high probability of being anthropogenic. There's very little science that the planet is going extinct anytime soon. The estimated warming to 2100 is between 1.5 degrees (not bad) to 4 degrees (bad). Most people are trying to change things, we currently spend 4 trillion dollars a year (globally) on combating and researching climate change. Only today drax has asked for the current 2 million pound a day subsidy from the UK gov to roll on from 2027 to 2030 to enable it to become carbon neutral by then. When you say most people are trying to change things, are you aware of Donald Trump's stance on environmental issues vs the American economy? You are aware that USA is the largest producer of greenhouse gases. I'm reading a lot of articles that say that whereas 4° C was previously considered "very bad" level they've since revised that figure to 2°C. On the previous thread I mentioned a glacier with a 1000ft tall cavity, which should it melt cause 65cm rise in sea level. It holds back other glaciers that would raise the sea level 2.4 meters. This damage was done in 3 years at 0.9 °C. So how much damage will be done at 1.5°C? The problems do not start when the sea covers our rooftops. The problems start when displaced people start moving inland. When will start happening? It already is!. I'll make this quick because your needed at CERN. I'm aware of Donald trump and I'm also aware that the USA has reduced it's c02 emissions more than the EU every year for the last six years mainly from the transition from coal power to gas power despite trump some would say and China actually is the biggest c02 emitter.
I've no idea what articles you read, I merely referenced the findings of the experts and the science of the IPCC,I do this because..
There's plenty of whacky nut jobs out there peddling all sorts of shit for there own political goals.
Thank goodness your not one of them. "I do have very selfish goals. I want to have children and grandchildren who live their lives in a habitable planet. I'm a monster I know. IPCC is famous for understating. No wonder you you consider them the only authority on environmental issues. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Following on from a previous thread... Is climate change a conspiracy theory used to attract people to political agendas? Are people like Leonardo DiCaprio being hoaxed out of their money? Or are we at the edge of the point in history where the planet could have been saved from extinction but were too stupid/ignorant/apathetic to care? Are our leaders stuffing their pockets with industrialists money or are they genuinely trying to change things?. According to the science the climate has risen 0.9 degrees since 1880 with most of that coming in the last 40 years, of that the vast majority has a high probability of being anthropogenic. There's very little science that the planet is going extinct anytime soon. The estimated warming to 2100 is between 1.5 degrees (not bad) to 4 degrees (bad). Most people are trying to change things, we currently spend 4 trillion dollars a year (globally) on combating and researching climate change. Only today drax has asked for the current 2 million pound a day subsidy from the UK gov to roll on from 2027 to 2030 to enable it to become carbon neutral by then. When you say most people are trying to change things, are you aware of Donald Trump's stance on environmental issues vs the American economy? You are aware that USA is the largest producer of greenhouse gases. I'm reading a lot of articles that say that whereas 4° C was previously considered "very bad" level they've since revised that figure to 2°C. On the previous thread I mentioned a glacier with a 1000ft tall cavity, which should it melt cause 65cm rise in sea level. It holds back other glaciers that would raise the sea level 2.4 meters. This damage was done in 3 years at 0.9 °C. So how much damage will be done at 1.5°C? The problems do not start when the sea covers our rooftops. The problems start when displaced people start moving inland. When will start happening? It already is!. I'll make this quick because your needed at CERN. I'm aware of Donald trump and I'm also aware that the USA has reduced it's c02 emissions more than the EU every year for the last six years mainly from the transition from coal power to gas power despite trump some would say and China actually is the biggest c02 emitter.
I've no idea what articles you read, I merely referenced the findings of the experts and the science of the IPCC,I do this because..
There's plenty of whacky nut jobs out there peddling all sorts of shit for there own political goals.
Thank goodness your not one of them. ""The world could see severe, catastrophic effects of climate change far sooner than anticipated, according to a new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)." https://www.businessinsider.com/the-un-has-warned-that-we-only-have-12-years-to-curb-climate-change-2018-10?r=US&IR=T This coming from the non-alarmist lobby. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Following on from a previous thread... Is climate change a conspiracy theory used to attract people to political agendas? Are people like Leonardo DiCaprio being hoaxed out of their money? Or are we at the edge of the point in history where the planet could have been saved from extinction but were too stupid/ignorant/apathetic to care? Are our leaders stuffing their pockets with industrialists money or are they genuinely trying to change things?. According to the science the climate has risen 0.9 degrees since 1880 with most of that coming in the last 40 years, of that the vast majority has a high probability of being anthropogenic. There's very little science that the planet is going extinct anytime soon. The estimated warming to 2100 is between 1.5 degrees (not bad) to 4 degrees (bad). Most people are trying to change things, we currently spend 4 trillion dollars a year (globally) on combating and researching climate change. Only today drax has asked for the current 2 million pound a day subsidy from the UK gov to roll on from 2027 to 2030 to enable it to become carbon neutral by then. When you say most people are trying to change things, are you aware of Donald Trump's stance on environmental issues vs the American economy? You are aware that USA is the largest producer of greenhouse gases. I'm reading a lot of articles that say that whereas 4° C was previously considered "very bad" level they've since revised that figure to 2°C. On the previous thread I mentioned a glacier with a 1000ft tall cavity, which should it melt cause 65cm rise in sea level. It holds back other glaciers that would raise the sea level 2.4 meters. This damage was done in 3 years at 0.9 °C. So how much damage will be done at 1.5°C? The problems do not start when the sea covers our rooftops. The problems start when displaced people start moving inland. When will start happening? It already is!. I'll make this quick because your needed at CERN. I'm aware of Donald trump and I'm also aware that the USA has reduced it's c02 emissions more than the EU every year for the last six years mainly from the transition from coal power to gas power despite trump some would say and China actually is the biggest c02 emitter.
I've no idea what articles you read, I merely referenced the findings of the experts and the science of the IPCC,I do this because..
There's plenty of whacky nut jobs out there peddling all sorts of shit for there own political goals.
Thank goodness your not one of them.
"The world could see severe, catastrophic effects of climate change far sooner than anticipated, according to a new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-un-has-warned-that-we-only-have-12-years-to-curb-climate-change-2018-10?r=US&IR=T
This coming from the non-alarmist lobby.
". Science doesn't do "coulds" you know that egghead, everything is a could It does probabilities for that reason, I'll check out your article anyhow. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Following on from a previous thread... Is climate change a conspiracy theory used to attract people to political agendas? Are people like Leonardo DiCaprio being hoaxed out of their money? Or are we at the edge of the point in history where the planet could have been saved from extinction but were too stupid/ignorant/apathetic to care? Are our leaders stuffing their pockets with industrialists money or are they genuinely trying to change things?. According to the science the climate has risen 0.9 degrees since 1880 with most of that coming in the last 40 years, of that the vast majority has a high probability of being anthropogenic. There's very little science that the planet is going extinct anytime soon. The estimated warming to 2100 is between 1.5 degrees (not bad) to 4 degrees (bad). Most people are trying to change things, we currently spend 4 trillion dollars a year (globally) on combating and researching climate change. Only today drax has asked for the current 2 million pound a day subsidy from the UK gov to roll on from 2027 to 2030 to enable it to become carbon neutral by then. When you say most people are trying to change things, are you aware of Donald Trump's stance on environmental issues vs the American economy? You are aware that USA is the largest producer of greenhouse gases. I'm reading a lot of articles that say that whereas 4° C was previously considered "very bad" level they've since revised that figure to 2°C. On the previous thread I mentioned a glacier with a 1000ft tall cavity, which should it melt cause 65cm rise in sea level. It holds back other glaciers that would raise the sea level 2.4 meters. This damage was done in 3 years at 0.9 °C. So how much damage will be done at 1.5°C? The problems do not start when the sea covers our rooftops. The problems start when displaced people start moving inland. When will start happening? It already is!. I'll make this quick because your needed at CERN. I'm aware of Donald trump and I'm also aware that the USA has reduced it's c02 emissions more than the EU every year for the last six years mainly from the transition from coal power to gas power despite trump some would say and China actually is the biggest c02 emitter.
I've no idea what articles you read, I merely referenced the findings of the experts and the science of the IPCC,I do this because..
There's plenty of whacky nut jobs out there peddling all sorts of shit for there own political goals.
Thank goodness your not one of them. "I stand corrected. China is the largest producer of CO2. Thanks for correcting me. The USA is the second largest producer. So we can just forget about them then? Phew! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Following on from a previous thread... Is climate change a conspiracy theory used to attract people to political agendas? Are people like Leonardo DiCaprio being hoaxed out of their money? Or are we at the edge of the point in history where the planet could have been saved from extinction but were too stupid/ignorant/apathetic to care? Are our leaders stuffing their pockets with industrialists money or are they genuinely trying to change things?. According to the science the climate has risen 0.9 degrees since 1880 with most of that coming in the last 40 years, of that the vast majority has a high probability of being anthropogenic. There's very little science that the planet is going extinct anytime soon. The estimated warming to 2100 is between 1.5 degrees (not bad) to 4 degrees (bad). Most people are trying to change things, we currently spend 4 trillion dollars a year (globally) on combating and researching climate change. Only today drax has asked for the current 2 million pound a day subsidy from the UK gov to roll on from 2027 to 2030 to enable it to become carbon neutral by then. When you say most people are trying to change things, are you aware of Donald Trump's stance on environmental issues vs the American economy? You are aware that USA is the largest producer of greenhouse gases. I'm reading a lot of articles that say that whereas 4° C was previously considered "very bad" level they've since revised that figure to 2°C. On the previous thread I mentioned a glacier with a 1000ft tall cavity, which should it melt cause 65cm rise in sea level. It holds back other glaciers that would raise the sea level 2.4 meters. This damage was done in 3 years at 0.9 °C. So how much damage will be done at 1.5°C? The problems do not start when the sea covers our rooftops. The problems start when displaced people start moving inland. When will start happening? It already is!. I'll make this quick because your needed at CERN. I'm aware of Donald trump and I'm also aware that the USA has reduced it's c02 emissions more than the EU every year for the last six years mainly from the transition from coal power to gas power despite trump some would say and China actually is the biggest c02 emitter.
I've no idea what articles you read, I merely referenced the findings of the experts and the science of the IPCC,I do this because..
There's plenty of whacky nut jobs out there peddling all sorts of shit for there own political goals.
Thank goodness your not one of them.
I do have very selfish goals. I want to have children and grandchildren who live their lives in a habitable planet. I'm a monster I know.
IPCC is famous for understating. No wonder you you consider them the only authority on environmental issues.". Jesus h they want to sack you from this job at CERN, first your never off here and secondly who the fuck else do you think should be in charge of climate change predictions and solutions if not the IPCC, the salvation army perhaps or your idiot mates XR  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The argument about the cause really ought to be secondary to the debate about what we need to do to address the huge migration and relocation problems it will bring as low-lying populated areas are inundated, e.g. when 164 million Bangladeshis are on the move in search of higher ground. " . It's about 325m back from the coast they currently have. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Following on from a previous thread... Is climate change a conspiracy theory used to attract people to political agendas? Are people like Leonardo DiCaprio being hoaxed out of their money? Or are we at the edge of the point in history where the planet could have been saved from extinction but were too stupid/ignorant/apathetic to care? Are our leaders stuffing their pockets with industrialists money or are they genuinely trying to change things?. According to the science the climate has risen 0.9 degrees since 1880 with most of that coming in the last 40 years, of that the vast majority has a high probability of being anthropogenic. There's very little science that the planet is going extinct anytime soon. The estimated warming to 2100 is between 1.5 degrees (not bad) to 4 degrees (bad). Most people are trying to change things, we currently spend 4 trillion dollars a year (globally) on combating and researching climate change. Only today drax has asked for the current 2 million pound a day subsidy from the UK gov to roll on from 2027 to 2030 to enable it to become carbon neutral by then. When you say most people are trying to change things, are you aware of Donald Trump's stance on environmental issues vs the American economy? You are aware that USA is the largest producer of greenhouse gases. I'm reading a lot of articles that say that whereas 4° C was previously considered "very bad" level they've since revised that figure to 2°C. On the previous thread I mentioned a glacier with a 1000ft tall cavity, which should it melt cause 65cm rise in sea level. It holds back other glaciers that would raise the sea level 2.4 meters. This damage was done in 3 years at 0.9 °C. So how much damage will be done at 1.5°C? The problems do not start when the sea covers our rooftops. The problems start when displaced people start moving inland. When will start happening? It already is!. I'll make this quick because your needed at CERN. I'm aware of Donald trump and I'm also aware that the USA has reduced it's c02 emissions more than the EU every year for the last six years mainly from the transition from coal power to gas power despite trump some would say and China actually is the biggest c02 emitter.
I've no idea what articles you read, I merely referenced the findings of the experts and the science of the IPCC,I do this because..
There's plenty of whacky nut jobs out there peddling all sorts of shit for there own political goals.
Thank goodness your not one of them.
I do have very selfish goals. I want to have children and grandchildren who live their lives in a habitable planet. I'm a monster I know.
IPCC is famous for understating. No wonder you you consider them the only authority on environmental issues..
Jesus h they want to sack you from this job at CERN, first your never off here and secondly who the fuck else do you think should be in charge of climate change predictions and solutions if not the IPCC, the salvation army perhaps or your idiot mates XR"CERN how do you know these things Sherlock? Gee boss can I have a loo break? Actually I freelance. I get paid for work I do. Once its done I get paid. So the faster I do the work the more I get paid. Right now I'm over a month ahead of the project I'm working on. But hey don't let not knowing anything about what you're an expert in stop you from flaunting your ignorance. Yes it's either IPCC or the salvation army. Those are the two choices.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The argument about the cause really ought to be secondary to the debate about what we need to do to address the huge migration and relocation problems it will bring as low-lying populated areas are inundated, e.g. when 164 million Bangladeshis are on the move in search of higher ground. " So with news currently centred of children lying on the floor because hospitals can't handle a busy weekend.... What happens when millions of people relocate to areas faster than we can build homes, hospitals, sanitation? If the sea rises so that your home is an inch under water at high tide does the government give you a new house inland? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Following on from a previous thread... Is climate change a conspiracy theory used to attract people to political agendas? Are people like Leonardo DiCaprio being hoaxed out of their money? Or are we at the edge of the point in history where the planet could have been saved from extinction but were too stupid/ignorant/apathetic to care? Are our leaders stuffing their pockets with industrialists money or are they genuinely trying to change things?. According to the science the climate has risen 0.9 degrees since 1880 with most of that coming in the last 40 years, of that the vast majority has a high probability of being anthropogenic. There's very little science that the planet is going extinct anytime soon. The estimated warming to 2100 is between 1.5 degrees (not bad) to 4 degrees (bad). Most people are trying to change things, we currently spend 4 trillion dollars a year (globally) on combating and researching climate change. Only today drax has asked for the current 2 million pound a day subsidy from the UK gov to roll on from 2027 to 2030 to enable it to become carbon neutral by then. When you say most people are trying to change things, are you aware of Donald Trump's stance on environmental issues vs the American economy? You are aware that USA is the largest producer of greenhouse gases. I'm reading a lot of articles that say that whereas 4° C was previously considered "very bad" level they've since revised that figure to 2°C. On the previous thread I mentioned a glacier with a 1000ft tall cavity, which should it melt cause 65cm rise in sea level. It holds back other glaciers that would raise the sea level 2.4 meters. This damage was done in 3 years at 0.9 °C. So how much damage will be done at 1.5°C? The problems do not start when the sea covers our rooftops. The problems start when displaced people start moving inland. When will start happening? It already is!. I'll make this quick because your needed at CERN. I'm aware of Donald trump and I'm also aware that the USA has reduced it's c02 emissions more than the EU every year for the last six years mainly from the transition from coal power to gas power despite trump some would say and China actually is the biggest c02 emitter.
I've no idea what articles you read, I merely referenced the findings of the experts and the science of the IPCC,I do this because..
There's plenty of whacky nut jobs out there peddling all sorts of shit for there own political goals.
Thank goodness your not one of them.
I do have very selfish goals. I want to have children and grandchildren who live their lives in a habitable planet. I'm a monster I know.
IPCC is famous for understating. No wonder you you consider them the only authority on environmental issues..
Jesus h they want to sack you from this job at CERN, first your never off here and secondly who the fuck else do you think should be in charge of climate change predictions and solutions if not the IPCC, the salvation army perhaps or your idiot mates XR
CERN how do you know these things Sherlock?
Gee boss can I have a loo break? Actually I freelance. I get paid for work I do. Once its done I get paid. So the faster I do the work the more I get paid. Right now I'm over a month ahead of the project I'm working on. But hey don't let not knowing anything about what you're an expert in stop you from flaunting your ignorance.
Yes it's either IPCC or the salvation army. Those are the two choices. ". CERN was just a joke at your constant references to you working on secretly lab projects.
If wanting to follow IPCC guidance on climate change makes me ignorant then I'll take it.
I'll leave you to talking bollocks that you've read or some "scientist" told you in conversation over your ham sandwiches at dinner | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The argument about the cause really ought to be secondary to the debate about what we need to do to address the huge migration and relocation problems it will bring as low-lying populated areas are inundated, e.g. when 164 million Bangladeshis are on the move in search of higher ground. So with news currently centred of children lying on the floor because hospitals can't handle a busy weekend.... What happens when millions of people relocate to areas faster than we can build homes, hospitals, sanitation? If the sea rises so that your home is an inch under water at high tide does the government give you a new house inland?" . Bangladesh has always been a flood plain, cyclones are the predominant cause. I suggest going backwards about 25 miles or building sea walls, if all else fails Pakistan is next door, well above sea level and sparse. Hopefully if China and India get there act together on emissions the worse might be mitigated. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Following on from a previous thread... Is climate change a conspiracy theory used to attract people to political agendas? Are people like Leonardo DiCaprio being hoaxed out of their money? Or are we at the edge of the point in history where the planet could have been saved from extinction but were too stupid/ignorant/apathetic to care? Are our leaders stuffing their pockets with industrialists money or are they genuinely trying to change things?. According to the science the climate has risen 0.9 degrees since 1880 with most of that coming in the last 40 years, of that the vast majority has a high probability of being anthropogenic. There's very little science that the planet is going extinct anytime soon. The estimated warming to 2100 is between 1.5 degrees (not bad) to 4 degrees (bad). Most people are trying to change things, we currently spend 4 trillion dollars a year (globally) on combating and researching climate change. Only today drax has asked for the current 2 million pound a day subsidy from the UK gov to roll on from 2027 to 2030 to enable it to become carbon neutral by then. " 0.9 degrees is incredibly fast in less than two centuries. There's also this thing about increasing rates that you mentioned which means that it's getting faster. Who on this thread has said that the "planet is going extinct soon"? What is unknown is at exactly what point we experience a tipping point at which the warming rate accelerates. There are lots of mechanisms that could do this. What actually saying? What is your point? That there is a problem but it's not that big a problem? There is a really big problem but we are doing enough? There is no problem and we don't have to do anything? You are right about some detail and that's what's important? I know that questions and responding to them directly confuses you, but how about you give it a go. It will be good practice for your GCSEs as you argue like a teenager trying to impress a girl. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Following on from a previous thread... Is climate change a conspiracy theory used to attract people to political agendas? Are people like Leonardo DiCaprio being hoaxed out of their money? Or are we at the edge of the point in history where the planet could have been saved from extinction but were too stupid/ignorant/apathetic to care? Are our leaders stuffing their pockets with industrialists money or are they genuinely trying to change things?. According to the science the climate has risen 0.9 degrees since 1880 with most of that coming in the last 40 years, of that the vast majority has a high probability of being anthropogenic. There's very little science that the planet is going extinct anytime soon. The estimated warming to 2100 is between 1.5 degrees (not bad) to 4 degrees (bad). Most people are trying to change things, we currently spend 4 trillion dollars a year (globally) on combating and researching climate change. Only today drax has asked for the current 2 million pound a day subsidy from the UK gov to roll on from 2027 to 2030 to enable it to become carbon neutral by then. When you say most people are trying to change things, are you aware of Donald Trump's stance on environmental issues vs the American economy? You are aware that USA is the largest producer of greenhouse gases. I'm reading a lot of articles that say that whereas 4° C was previously considered "very bad" level they've since revised that figure to 2°C. On the previous thread I mentioned a glacier with a 1000ft tall cavity, which should it melt cause 65cm rise in sea level. It holds back other glaciers that would raise the sea level 2.4 meters. This damage was done in 3 years at 0.9 °C. So how much damage will be done at 1.5°C? The problems do not start when the sea covers our rooftops. The problems start when displaced people start moving inland. When will start happening? It already is!. I'll make this quick because your needed at CERN. I'm aware of Donald trump and I'm also aware that the USA has reduced it's c02 emissions more than the EU every year for the last six years mainly from the transition from coal power to gas power despite trump some would say and China actually is the biggest c02 emitter.
I've no idea what articles you read, I merely referenced the findings of the experts and the science of the IPCC,I do this because..
There's plenty of whacky nut jobs out there peddling all sorts of shit for there own political goals.
Thank goodness your not one of them.
I do have very selfish goals. I want to have children and grandchildren who live their lives in a habitable planet. I'm a monster I know.
IPCC is famous for understating. No wonder you you consider them the only authority on environmental issues..
Jesus h they want to sack you from this job at CERN, first your never off here and secondly who the fuck else do you think should be in charge of climate change predictions and solutions if not the IPCC, the salvation army perhaps or your idiot mates XR
CERN how do you know these things Sherlock?
Gee boss can I have a loo break? Actually I freelance. I get paid for work I do. Once its done I get paid. So the faster I do the work the more I get paid. Right now I'm over a month ahead of the project I'm working on. But hey don't let not knowing anything about what you're an expert in stop you from flaunting your ignorance.
Yes it's either IPCC or the salvation army. Those are the two choices. .
CERN was just a joke at your constant references to you working on secretly lab projects.
If wanting to follow IPCC guidance on climate change makes me ignorant then I'll take it.
I'll leave you to talking bollocks that you've read or some "scientist" told you in conversation over your ham sandwiches at dinner "As I've said it's not top secret. The STFC aspect is open to the public unless there is MOD work being done in which case there are literally armed personnel stationed in the building. I don't know why you put the word scientist in quotes. People don't get PhDs in things like particle physics as a hoby and then work as janitors. (These idiots as you call them. If you want to find a true genius look on fab) So just so I understand this. Everything you say is gospel, anything anyone else says is bollocks? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Following on from a previous thread... Is climate change a conspiracy theory used to attract people to political agendas? Are people like Leonardo DiCaprio being hoaxed out of their money? Or are we at the edge of the point in history where the planet could have been saved from extinction but were too stupid/ignorant/apathetic to care? Are our leaders stuffing their pockets with industrialists money or are they genuinely trying to change things?. According to the science the climate has risen 0.9 degrees since 1880 with most of that coming in the last 40 years, of that the vast majority has a high probability of being anthropogenic. There's very little science that the planet is going extinct anytime soon. The estimated warming to 2100 is between 1.5 degrees (not bad) to 4 degrees (bad). Most people are trying to change things, we currently spend 4 trillion dollars a year (globally) on combating and researching climate change. Only today drax has asked for the current 2 million pound a day subsidy from the UK gov to roll on from 2027 to 2030 to enable it to become carbon neutral by then. 0.9 degrees is incredibly fast in less than two centuries. There's also this thing about increasing rates that you mentioned which means that it's getting faster. Who on this thread has said that the "planet is going extinct soon"? What is unknown is at exactly what point we experience a tipping point at which the warming rate accelerates. There are lots of mechanisms that could do this. What actually saying? What is your point? That there is a problem but it's not that big a problem? There is a really big problem but we are doing enough? There is no problem and we don't have to do anything? You are right about some detail and that's what's important? I know that questions and responding to them directly confuses you, but how about you give it a go. It will be good practice for your GCSEs as you argue like a teenager trying to impress a girl." . Who on this thread has mentioned extinction lol, read further up on this very post you've quoted | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Hopefully if China and India get there act together on emissions the worse might be mitigated." The UK has outsourced much of its own emissions to these two countries. Just look at all the junk on sale in shops this time of year and where it has come from. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Following on from a previous thread... Is climate change a conspiracy theory used to attract people to political agendas? Are people like Leonardo DiCaprio being hoaxed out of their money? Or are we at the edge of the point in history where the planet could have been saved from extinction but were too stupid/ignorant/apathetic to care? Are our leaders stuffing their pockets with industrialists money or are they genuinely trying to change things?. According to the science the climate has risen 0.9 degrees since 1880 with most of that coming in the last 40 years, of that the vast majority has a high probability of being anthropogenic. There's very little science that the planet is going extinct anytime soon. The estimated warming to 2100 is between 1.5 degrees (not bad) to 4 degrees (bad). Most people are trying to change things, we currently spend 4 trillion dollars a year (globally) on combating and researching climate change. Only today drax has asked for the current 2 million pound a day subsidy from the UK gov to roll on from 2027 to 2030 to enable it to become carbon neutral by then. 0.9 degrees is incredibly fast in less than two centuries. There's also this thing about increasing rates that you mentioned which means that it's getting faster. Who on this thread has said that the "planet is going extinct soon"? What is unknown is at exactly what point we experience a tipping point at which the warming rate accelerates. There are lots of mechanisms that could do this. What actually saying? What is your point? That there is a problem but it's not that big a problem? There is a really big problem but we are doing enough? There is no problem and we don't have to do anything? You are right about some detail and that's what's important? I know that questions and responding to them directly confuses you, but how about you give it a go. It will be good practice for your GCSEs as you argue like a teenager trying to impress a girl." Um. I did. I said that we will be extinct soon. Apparently because I can't quote an IPCC oficial saying it, it isn't so. I give us 25 years at best. So let's say I'm wrong and I certainly hope I am. Let's say the last human draws the last breath in 2100. Is that an excuse to not do anything about it now? Are we going to wait until we've gone through all the tipping points when NOTHING we can do will save the planet and only start doing something about it then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Following on from a previous thread... Is climate change a conspiracy theory used to attract people to political agendas? Are people like Leonardo DiCaprio being hoaxed out of their money? Or are we at the edge of the point in history where the planet could have been saved from extinction but were too stupid/ignorant/apathetic to care? Are our leaders stuffing their pockets with industrialists money or are they genuinely trying to change things?. According to the science the climate has risen 0.9 degrees since 1880 with most of that coming in the last 40 years, of that the vast majority has a high probability of being anthropogenic. There's very little science that the planet is going extinct anytime soon. The estimated warming to 2100 is between 1.5 degrees (not bad) to 4 degrees (bad). Most people are trying to change things, we currently spend 4 trillion dollars a year (globally) on combating and researching climate change. Only today drax has asked for the current 2 million pound a day subsidy from the UK gov to roll on from 2027 to 2030 to enable it to become carbon neutral by then. When you say most people are trying to change things, are you aware of Donald Trump's stance on environmental issues vs the American economy? You are aware that USA is the largest producer of greenhouse gases. I'm reading a lot of articles that say that whereas 4° C was previously considered "very bad" level they've since revised that figure to 2°C. On the previous thread I mentioned a glacier with a 1000ft tall cavity, which should it melt cause 65cm rise in sea level. It holds back other glaciers that would raise the sea level 2.4 meters. This damage was done in 3 years at 0.9 °C. So how much damage will be done at 1.5°C? The problems do not start when the sea covers our rooftops. The problems start when displaced people start moving inland. When will start happening? It already is!. I'll make this quick because your needed at CERN. I'm aware of Donald trump and I'm also aware that the USA has reduced it's c02 emissions more than the EU every year for the last six years mainly from the transition from coal power to gas power despite trump some would say and China actually is the biggest c02 emitter.
I've no idea what articles you read, I merely referenced the findings of the experts and the science of the IPCC,I do this because..
There's plenty of whacky nut jobs out there peddling all sorts of shit for there own political goals.
Thank goodness your not one of them.
I do have very selfish goals. I want to have children and grandchildren who live their lives in a habitable planet. I'm a monster I know.
IPCC is famous for understating. No wonder you you consider them the only authority on environmental issues..
Jesus h they want to sack you from this job at CERN, first your never off here and secondly who the fuck else do you think should be in charge of climate change predictions and solutions if not the IPCC, the salvation army perhaps or your idiot mates XR
CERN how do you know these things Sherlock?
Gee boss can I have a loo break? Actually I freelance. I get paid for work I do. Once its done I get paid. So the faster I do the work the more I get paid. Right now I'm over a month ahead of the project I'm working on. But hey don't let not knowing anything about what you're an expert in stop you from flaunting your ignorance.
Yes it's either IPCC or the salvation army. Those are the two choices. .
CERN was just a joke at your constant references to you working on secretly lab projects.
If wanting to follow IPCC guidance on climate change makes me ignorant then I'll take it.
I'll leave you to talking bollocks that you've read or some "scientist" told you in conversation over your ham sandwiches at dinner
As I've said it's not top secret. The STFC aspect is open to the public unless there is MOD work being done in which case there are literally armed personnel stationed in the building.
I don't know why you put the word scientist in quotes. People don't get PhDs in things like particle physics as a hoby and then work as janitors. (These idiots as you call them. If you want to find a true genius look on fab)
So just so I understand this. Everything you say is gospel, anything anyone else says is bollocks?". They might be idiots they might be scientists who knows but I'll break this to you really slowly, science is really specialist climate science is really specialist, they wouldn't advise eggheads like you on optics and I'd expect there'd say your talking out your arse on there branch of specialising. Everything I say comes straight from the specialists at the IPCC so yes I'm credible and your not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Hopefully if China and India get there act together on emissions the worse might be mitigated. The UK has outsourced much of its own emissions to these two countries. Just look at all the junk on sale in shops this time of year and where it has come from." . Oh we agree on that front, have you considered writing a letter to trump about stopping bilateral trade | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Following on from a previous thread... Is climate change a conspiracy theory used to attract people to political agendas? Are people like Leonardo DiCaprio being hoaxed out of their money? Or are we at the edge of the point in history where the planet could have been saved from extinction but were too stupid/ignorant/apathetic to care? Are our leaders stuffing their pockets with industrialists money or are they genuinely trying to change things?. According to the science the climate has risen 0.9 degrees since 1880 with most of that coming in the last 40 years, of that the vast majority has a high probability of being anthropogenic. There's very little science that the planet is going extinct anytime soon. The estimated warming to 2100 is between 1.5 degrees (not bad) to 4 degrees (bad). Most people are trying to change things, we currently spend 4 trillion dollars a year (globally) on combating and researching climate change. Only today drax has asked for the current 2 million pound a day subsidy from the UK gov to roll on from 2027 to 2030 to enable it to become carbon neutral by then. 0.9 degrees is incredibly fast in less than two centuries. There's also this thing about increasing rates that you mentioned which means that it's getting faster. Who on this thread has said that the "planet is going extinct soon"? What is unknown is at exactly what point we experience a tipping point at which the warming rate accelerates. There are lots of mechanisms that could do this. What actually saying? What is your point? That there is a problem but it's not that big a problem? There is a really big problem but we are doing enough? There is no problem and we don't have to do anything? You are right about some detail and that's what's important? I know that questions and responding to them directly confuses you, but how about you give it a go. It will be good practice for your GCSEs as you argue like a teenager trying to impress a girl.. Who on this thread has mentioned extinction lol, read further up on this very post you've quoted "The quote on catastrophe being forecast sooner than expected comes from the IPCC report. The same straw some of us are clinging to. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Hopefully if China and India get there act together on emissions the worse might be mitigated. The UK has outsourced much of its own emissions to these two countries. Just look at all the junk on sale in shops this time of year and where it has come from.. Oh we agree on that front, have you considered writing a letter to trump about stopping bilateral trade "It's a global problem that requires a global consensus and action plan. Returning to the protectionism of the 1930s or 1890s isn't the way forward. The climate change accord is a start, a step in the right direction, but right now Trump just wants to wreck it because, unlike previous US leaders, he is withdrawing the US from any sort of global leadership. America First. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Following on from a previous thread... Is climate change a conspiracy theory used to attract people to political agendas? Are people like Leonardo DiCaprio being hoaxed out of their money? Or are we at the edge of the point in history where the planet could have been saved from extinction but were too stupid/ignorant/apathetic to care? Are our leaders stuffing their pockets with industrialists money or are they genuinely trying to change things?. According to the science the climate has risen 0.9 degrees since 1880 with most of that coming in the last 40 years, of that the vast majority has a high probability of being anthropogenic. There's very little science that the planet is going extinct anytime soon. The estimated warming to 2100 is between 1.5 degrees (not bad) to 4 degrees (bad). Most people are trying to change things, we currently spend 4 trillion dollars a year (globally) on combating and researching climate change. Only today drax has asked for the current 2 million pound a day subsidy from the UK gov to roll on from 2027 to 2030 to enable it to become carbon neutral by then. When you say most people are trying to change things, are you aware of Donald Trump's stance on environmental issues vs the American economy? You are aware that USA is the largest producer of greenhouse gases. I'm reading a lot of articles that say that whereas 4° C was previously considered "very bad" level they've since revised that figure to 2°C. On the previous thread I mentioned a glacier with a 1000ft tall cavity, which should it melt cause 65cm rise in sea level. It holds back other glaciers that would raise the sea level 2.4 meters. This damage was done in 3 years at 0.9 °C. So how much damage will be done at 1.5°C? The problems do not start when the sea covers our rooftops. The problems start when displaced people start moving inland. When will start happening? It already is!. I'll make this quick because your needed at CERN. I'm aware of Donald trump and I'm also aware that the USA has reduced it's c02 emissions more than the EU every year for the last six years mainly from the transition from coal power to gas power despite trump some would say and China actually is the biggest c02 emitter.
I've no idea what articles you read, I merely referenced the findings of the experts and the science of the IPCC,I do this because..
There's plenty of whacky nut jobs out there peddling all sorts of shit for there own political goals.
Thank goodness your not one of them.
I do have very selfish goals. I want to have children and grandchildren who live their lives in a habitable planet. I'm a monster I know.
IPCC is famous for understating. No wonder you you consider them the only authority on environmental issues..
Jesus h they want to sack you from this job at CERN, first your never off here and secondly who the fuck else do you think should be in charge of climate change predictions and solutions if not the IPCC, the salvation army perhaps or your idiot mates XR
CERN how do you know these things Sherlock?
Gee boss can I have a loo break? Actually I freelance. I get paid for work I do. Once its done I get paid. So the faster I do the work the more I get paid. Right now I'm over a month ahead of the project I'm working on. But hey don't let not knowing anything about what you're an expert in stop you from flaunting your ignorance.
Yes it's either IPCC or the salvation army. Those are the two choices. .
CERN was just a joke at your constant references to you working on secretly lab projects.
If wanting to follow IPCC guidance on climate change makes me ignorant then I'll take it.
I'll leave you to talking bollocks that you've read or some "scientist" told you in conversation over your ham sandwiches at dinner
As I've said it's not top secret. The STFC aspect is open to the public unless there is MOD work being done in which case there are literally armed personnel stationed in the building.
I don't know why you put the word scientist in quotes. People don't get PhDs in things like particle physics as a hoby and then work as janitors. (These idiots as you call them. If you want to find a true genius look on fab)
So just so I understand this. Everything you say is gospel, anything anyone else says is bollocks?.
They might be idiots they might be scientists who knows but I'll break this to you really slowly, science is really specialist climate science is really specialist, they wouldn't advise eggheads like you on optics and I'd expect there'd say your talking out your arse on there branch of specialising.
Everything I say comes straight from the specialists at the IPCC so yes I'm credible and your not."I did have a suitable counter argument but now that you've called me names I'm going to cry in the corner. Ah I see you don't really know anything about them except that they are wrong. Right now researchers say that permafrost is thawing at depth not expected until temperatures rose to levels that IPCC expected in 2090. So they are ONLY 70 years out on that one..... well let's ignore reality and believe what the IPCC says shall we? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Hopefully if China and India get there act together on emissions the worse might be mitigated. The UK has outsourced much of its own emissions to these two countries. Just look at all the junk on sale in shops this time of year and where it has come from.. Oh we agree on that front, have you considered writing a letter to trump about stopping bilateral trade
It's a global problem that requires a global consensus and action plan.
Returning to the protectionism of the 1930s or 1890s isn't the way forward.
The climate change accord is a start, a step in the right direction, but right now Trump just wants to wreck it because, unlike previous US leaders, he is withdrawing the US from any sort of global leadership.
America First.". They leave one day after his term ends, they can rejoin within 30 days if he doesn't get re-elected
Every cloud and all that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Following on from a previous thread... Is climate change a conspiracy theory used to attract people to political agendas? Are people like Leonardo DiCaprio being hoaxed out of their money? Or are we at the edge of the point in history where the planet could have been saved from extinction but were too stupid/ignorant/apathetic to care? Are our leaders stuffing their pockets with industrialists money or are they genuinely trying to change things?. According to the science the climate has risen 0.9 degrees since 1880 with most of that coming in the last 40 years, of that the vast majority has a high probability of being anthropogenic. There's very little science that the planet is going extinct anytime soon. The estimated warming to 2100 is between 1.5 degrees (not bad) to 4 degrees (bad). Most people are trying to change things, we currently spend 4 trillion dollars a year (globally) on combating and researching climate change. Only today drax has asked for the current 2 million pound a day subsidy from the UK gov to roll on from 2027 to 2030 to enable it to become carbon neutral by then. When you say most people are trying to change things, are you aware of Donald Trump's stance on environmental issues vs the American economy? You are aware that USA is the largest producer of greenhouse gases. I'm reading a lot of articles that say that whereas 4° C was previously considered "very bad" level they've since revised that figure to 2°C. On the previous thread I mentioned a glacier with a 1000ft tall cavity, which should it melt cause 65cm rise in sea level. It holds back other glaciers that would raise the sea level 2.4 meters. This damage was done in 3 years at 0.9 °C. So how much damage will be done at 1.5°C? The problems do not start when the sea covers our rooftops. The problems start when displaced people start moving inland. When will start happening? It already is!. I'll make this quick because your needed at CERN. I'm aware of Donald trump and I'm also aware that the USA has reduced it's c02 emissions more than the EU every year for the last six years mainly from the transition from coal power to gas power despite trump some would say and China actually is the biggest c02 emitter.
I've no idea what articles you read, I merely referenced the findings of the experts and the science of the IPCC,I do this because..
There's plenty of whacky nut jobs out there peddling all sorts of shit for there own political goals.
Thank goodness your not one of them.
I do have very selfish goals. I want to have children and grandchildren who live their lives in a habitable planet. I'm a monster I know.
IPCC is famous for understating. No wonder you you consider them the only authority on environmental issues..
Jesus h they want to sack you from this job at CERN, first your never off here and secondly who the fuck else do you think should be in charge of climate change predictions and solutions if not the IPCC, the salvation army perhaps or your idiot mates XR
CERN how do you know these things Sherlock?
Gee boss can I have a loo break? Actually I freelance. I get paid for work I do. Once its done I get paid. So the faster I do the work the more I get paid. Right now I'm over a month ahead of the project I'm working on. But hey don't let not knowing anything about what you're an expert in stop you from flaunting your ignorance.
Yes it's either IPCC or the salvation army. Those are the two choices. .
CERN was just a joke at your constant references to you working on secretly lab projects.
If wanting to follow IPCC guidance on climate change makes me ignorant then I'll take it.
I'll leave you to talking bollocks that you've read or some "scientist" told you in conversation over your ham sandwiches at dinner
As I've said it's not top secret. The STFC aspect is open to the public unless there is MOD work being done in which case there are literally armed personnel stationed in the building.
I don't know why you put the word scientist in quotes. People don't get PhDs in things like particle physics as a hoby and then work as janitors. (These idiots as you call them. If you want to find a true genius look on fab)
So just so I understand this. Everything you say is gospel, anything anyone else says is bollocks?.
They might be idiots they might be scientists who knows but I'll break this to you really slowly, science is really specialist climate science is really specialist, they wouldn't advise eggheads like you on optics and I'd expect there'd say your talking out your arse on there branch of specialising.
Everything I say comes straight from the specialists at the IPCC so yes I'm credible and your not.
I did have a suitable counter argument but now that you've called me names I'm going to cry in the corner.
Ah I see you don't really know anything about them except that they are wrong.
Right now researchers say that permafrost is thawing at depth not expected until temperatures rose to levels that IPCC expected in 2090. So they are ONLY 70 years out on that one..... well let's ignore reality and believe what the IPCC says shall we?
". You mean researchers who work with the IPCC?... Not researchers who work in optics in a lab in England?. Yes we listen to them not you, why, because they know what they're talking about where as you clearly have no idea and spend your days gleaming things from death cultist whack jobs off YouTube I suspect. Melting permafrost was first reported by the IPCC in 1998, they considered it a worrying development that required more and careful research. Climate sensitivity and positive and negative reinforcements are the less easily predicted problem's of man made warming. | |||
(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 |
"However, the bureaucratic process that produces IPCC reports is not exclusively scientific. Final documents are created by consensus among all the participants, some of whom are policy-makers without scientific backgrounds or knowledge. Political concerns come into play, such as how the recommendations will affect their home industries and what kind of story they’re trying to sell to their populace. Additionally, because this process is slow, the data is not current. When an IPCC report is released, the numbers in it are often at least five years old. In describing how the IPCC operates, Meteorologist Nick Humphrey said: “Essentially making sure it’s not too dire [and] shows economic paths to success.” Clearly, such methodology has been giving us a picture that underestimates the true situation, and that is not in anybody’s interest. " . Oh god yes we all know giant government bureaucracy moves slowly, the very nature of science is conservative by nature because they want to be as accurate as possible, many many people can wildly speculate but fixing big things like climate change sometimes often requires that very method. I agree that there's plenty government could do today, limiting flights to say 1 flight ppp, tax rebates for those that work within 2 miles of where they live, tax hikes on big cars, tax hikes on second homes, limiting benefits to one child pp, freezing all home building until they can do it carbon neutrally, build some nuclear power stations, reforest everywhere possible (jobs for the jobless). Biggest one of all nuclear power all commercial shipping, it's twenty year old technology, really cheap, really safe and accounts for 25-30% of all transport emissions.
Of course no party is going to do anything sensible because it's a money merry go round | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This subject always seems to turn into a slanging match, which really is very sad. It's probably the most important issue of our time yet no-one seems to want to debate it sensibly. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that human activity is accelerating climate change. By how much? I don't know and I really don't think anyone, not even climate scientists, can come up with an exact number. Where I tend to fall out with some of the zealots is on the subject of what can we do? Mankind can do something about it but only as a united front. This notion that a small island in the north Atlantic can alter anything on its own (while impoverishing itself in the process) is just nonsense. For example: Britain closes one coal fired power station (Didcot) that had a generating capacity of 1.44 gigawatts. Meanwhile China has 259 gigawatts under development (179 Didcots) which is on top of the 993 gigawatts (689 Didcots) it already has. The UK’s total generating capacity in all forms is 85 gigawatts, less than 7% of China's total. If Britain gave up using electricity entirely, it would make no difference to the impact of Chinese coal burning. On top of that India has now hit 200 gigawatts (139 Didcots) and still growing. A little side anecdote is that earlier this year we were on a cruise ship that called in at Bangalore (or New Mangalore as they like to call it these days) We were still a few miles offshore when I got a smell in my nose that I hadn't experienced since my childhood. That strong smell of burned sulphur that used to hang over British towns and cities when everyone had a coal fire. As we docked the source became obvious. A large coal depot on the dockside that was smouldering away at various points with a cloud of acrid black smoke being pushed out to sea. Then there is Brazil and Indonesia. Burning thousands of square miles of rain forest which not only pumps tons of CO2 into the atmosphere it also destroys the planets natural filters as well. Mankind as a whole needs to find an answer and has to work together. But one small country building a few windmills, slapping green taxes on everything, and banning diesels from city centres may salve a few consciences but it won't make a jot of difference to the overall picture. In fact it could actually be counter productive. If for example green taxes were to drive manufacturing to say China. Then they would need to build more coal fired power stations to satisfy the demand. It's a worldwide problem that needs a worldwide answer, but I don't see it coming any time soon. Maybe better to prepare for it rather than futile, Canute like, attempts to stop it." Whilst I agree with most of what you say. I disagree on what we can do about it. Right now we are going to the polls. What will determine this vote is Brexit. A decision which in 100 years time will be meaningless. Consider a world where no leader is elected unless that leader has a solid ecological policy by which that stands. Failure to do so has them removed from office. Imagine if tomorrow world leaders told Brazil that they would declare economic sanctions on them unless they enforced their own laws on forest fires. It would stop tomorrow. Imagine if instead of declaring Sea Shepherd terrorists, we had sent our navy to prevent Japan from whaling instead of having a world cup and actually praising a country on their environmentalism when they are hunting whales into extinction? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Following on from a previous thread... Is climate change a conspiracy theory used to attract people to political agendas? Are people like Leonardo DiCaprio being hoaxed out of their money? Or are we at the edge of the point in history where the planet could have been saved from extinction but were too stupid/ignorant/apathetic to care? Are our leaders stuffing their pockets with industrialists money or are they genuinely trying to change things?. According to the science the climate has risen 0.9 degrees since 1880 with most of that coming in the last 40 years, of that the vast majority has a high probability of being anthropogenic. There's very little science that the planet is going extinct anytime soon. The estimated warming to 2100 is between 1.5 degrees (not bad) to 4 degrees (bad). Most people are trying to change things, we currently spend 4 trillion dollars a year (globally) on combating and researching climate change. Only today drax has asked for the current 2 million pound a day subsidy from the UK gov to roll on from 2027 to 2030 to enable it to become carbon neutral by then. 0.9 degrees is incredibly fast in less than two centuries. There's also this thing about increasing rates that you mentioned which means that it's getting faster. Who on this thread has said that the "planet is going extinct soon"? What is unknown is at exactly what point we experience a tipping point at which the warming rate accelerates. There are lots of mechanisms that could do this. What actually saying? What is your point? That there is a problem but it's not that big a problem? There is a really big problem but we are doing enough? There is no problem and we don't have to do anything? You are right about some detail and that's what's important? I know that questions and responding to them directly confuses you, but how about you give it a go. It will be good practice for your GCSEs as you argue like a teenager trying to impress a girl.. Who on this thread has mentioned extinction lol, read further up on this very post you've quoted "Understood. I see the line for which I apologise. I still have no idea what you are saying though. Do you? "What is your point? That there is a problem but it's not that big a problem? There is a really big problem but we are doing enough? There is no problem and we don't have to do anything? You are right about some detail and that's what's important?" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anybody know how much c02 labours extra 300,000 houses a year project would commit to? Bricks, concrete, diggers, sand tens of thousands of men commuting, trucks delivering, top water run off from hard surfaces causing extra flooding. What no idea?. How about the 200 billion pounds infrastructure projects, the man hours required for free broadband everywhere, 40 new hospitals, what's the c02 emissions on building them?. Is somebody going to magic up some magic energy to go with the magic money tree. "Probably less than the total emissions from one day of forest fires in the Amazon. There was a money tree. But unfortunately we chopped it down and burned it along with everything else. So once sea levels have risen (Be it now, 100 years or 200 years) and houses, schools, hospitals etc are inhabitable, where do you picture the former occupants of those houses living? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Probably less than the total emissions from one day of forest fires in the Amazon. " I rest my case. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This subject always seems to turn into a slanging match, which really is very sad. It's probably the most important issue of our time yet no-one seems to want to debate it sensibly. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that human activity is accelerating climate change. By how much? I don't know and I really don't think anyone, not even climate scientists, can come up with an exact number. Where I tend to fall out with some of the zealots is on the subject of what can we do? Mankind can do something about it but only as a united front. This notion that a small island in the north Atlantic can alter anything on its own (while impoverishing itself in the process) is just nonsense. For example: Britain closes one coal fired power station (Didcot) that had a generating capacity of 1.44 gigawatts. Meanwhile China has 259 gigawatts under development (179 Didcots) which is on top of the 993 gigawatts (689 Didcots) it already has. The UK’s total generating capacity in all forms is 85 gigawatts, less than 7% of China's total. If Britain gave up using electricity entirely, it would make no difference to the impact of Chinese coal burning. On top of that India has now hit 200 gigawatts (139 Didcots) and still growing. A little side anecdote is that earlier this year we were on a cruise ship that called in at Bangalore (or New Mangalore as they like to call it these days) We were still a few miles offshore when I got a smell in my nose that I hadn't experienced since my childhood. That strong smell of burned sulphur that used to hang over British towns and cities when everyone had a coal fire. As we docked the source became obvious. A large coal depot on the dockside that was smouldering away at various points with a cloud of acrid black smoke being pushed out to sea. Then there is Brazil and Indonesia. Burning thousands of square miles of rain forest which not only pumps tons of CO2 into the atmosphere it also destroys the planets natural filters as well. Mankind as a whole needs to find an answer and has to work together. But one small country building a few windmills, slapping green taxes on everything, and banning diesels from city centres may salve a few consciences but it won't make a jot of difference to the overall picture. In fact it could actually be counter productive. If for example green taxes were to drive manufacturing to say China. Then they would need to build more coal fired power stations to satisfy the demand. It's a worldwide problem that needs a worldwide answer, but I don't see it coming any time soon. Maybe better to prepare for it rather than futile, Canute like, attempts to stop it." Nobody knows "exactly". That is a foolish yardstick to use. Base it on a risk analysis. Almost any investment made now will cost vast amounts less than dealing with the consequences of even a proportion of the expected risk being realised. The entire automotive and road transport industry is shifting to battery and hydrogen fuel cells. Billions of investment. The aerospace industry is doing the same with an early switch to biofuels as a start. We are not doing anything "on our own". That's what the Paris Climate Accord was about. Unfortunately the USA has decided to stick its fingers in its ears and go "lalala" so that they can make money in the short term for their chums giving other countries the pretext to do the same. However, you can even put that aside now. The economics of renewable energy make the technology move pretty much inevitable. This is with no subsidy. The oil and coal industries are heavily subsidised despite the huge profits being made for decades. So the argument for having a lead in developing the technology as a country is compelling. So no, I don't think that the argument to do nothing and prepare for disaster is the right one. We cannot afford the disaster. The right technology could prevent it and we could make money doing it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So once sea levels have risen (Be it now, 100 years or 200 years) and houses, schools, hospitals etc are inhabitable, where do you picture the former occupants of those houses living?" I hear that the Alps are quite nice.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anybody know how much c02 labours extra 300,000 houses a year project would commit to? Bricks, concrete, diggers, sand tens of thousands of men commuting, trucks delivering, top water run off from hard surfaces causing extra flooding. What no idea?. How about the 200 billion pounds infrastructure projects, the man hours required for free broadband everywhere, 40 new hospitals, what's the c02 emissions on building them?. Is somebody going to magic up some magic energy to go with the magic money tree.
Probably less than the total emissions from one day of forest fires in the Amazon.
". Ok egghead how much do you wanna bet?. Should we do the maths?. I'm willing to bet your not right, in fact your so wrong your wronger | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This subject always seems to turn into a slanging match, which really is very sad. It's probably the most important issue of our time yet no-one seems to want to debate it sensibly. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that human activity is accelerating climate change. By how much? I don't know and I really don't think anyone, not even climate scientists, can come up with an exact number. Where I tend to fall out with some of the zealots is on the subject of what can we do? Mankind can do something about it but only as a united front. This notion that a small island in the north Atlantic can alter anything on its own (while impoverishing itself in the process) is just nonsense. For example: Britain closes one coal fired power station (Didcot) that had a generating capacity of 1.44 gigawatts. Meanwhile China has 259 gigawatts under development (179 Didcots) which is on top of the 993 gigawatts (689 Didcots) it already has. The UK’s total generating capacity in all forms is 85 gigawatts, less than 7% of China's total. If Britain gave up using electricity entirely, it would make no difference to the impact of Chinese coal burning. On top of that India has now hit 200 gigawatts (139 Didcots) and still growing. A little side anecdote is that earlier this year we were on a cruise ship that called in at Bangalore (or New Mangalore as they like to call it these days) We were still a few miles offshore when I got a smell in my nose that I hadn't experienced since my childhood. That strong smell of burned sulphur that used to hang over British towns and cities when everyone had a coal fire. As we docked the source became obvious. A large coal depot on the dockside that was smouldering away at various points with a cloud of acrid black smoke being pushed out to sea. Then there is Brazil and Indonesia. Burning thousands of square miles of rain forest which not only pumps tons of CO2 into the atmosphere it also destroys the planets natural filters as well. Mankind as a whole needs to find an answer and has to work together. But one small country building a few windmills, slapping green taxes on everything, and banning diesels from city centres may salve a few consciences but it won't make a jot of difference to the overall picture. In fact it could actually be counter productive. If for example green taxes were to drive manufacturing to say China. Then they would need to build more coal fired power stations to satisfy the demand. It's a worldwide problem that needs a worldwide answer, but I don't see it coming any time soon. Maybe better to prepare for it rather than futile, Canute like, attempts to stop it. Nobody knows "exactly". That is a foolish yardstick to use. Base it on a risk analysis. Almost any investment made now will cost vast amounts less than dealing with the consequences of even a proportion of the expected risk being realised. The entire automotive and road transport industry is shifting to battery and hydrogen fuel cells. Billions of investment. The aerospace industry is doing the same with an early switch to biofuels as a start. We are not doing anything "on our own". That's what the Paris Climate Accord was about. Unfortunately the USA has decided to stick its fingers in its ears and go "lalala" so that they can make money in the short term for their chums giving other countries the pretext to do the same. However, you can even put that aside now. The economics of renewable energy make the technology move pretty much inevitable. This is with no subsidy. The oil and coal industries are heavily subsidised despite the huge profits being made for decades. So the argument for having a lead in developing the technology as a country is compelling. So no, I don't think that the argument to do nothing and prepare for disaster is the right one. We cannot afford the disaster. The right technology could prevent it and we could make money doing it." Then tell that to the Chinese. They have no interest whatsoever in going green and won't have for the foreseeable future. If ever. It seems that many are more than happy to trash the western economy's and if, it won't, but if it would make any difference at all then you could make an argument for it. The only difference turning the lights out will make is that you won't see your feet getting wet. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The aerospace industry is doing the same with an early switch to biofuels as a start. We are not doing anything "on our own". That's what the Paris Climate Accord was about. Unfortunately the USA has decided to stick its fingers in its ears and go "lalala" so that they can make money in the short term for their chums giving other countries the pretext to do the same. " Firstly I'll pick up on the bio fuel point. Bio fuel is doing as much, if not more, harm as fossil fuel. Why do you think they are burning forests in Indonesia? (among other places) To plant palms for palm oil to make bio fuel. As for the big bad USA bogeyman. True Trump hasn't covered himself in glory on this one. However just to single out the USA to me smacks of the "political agenda" that the OP mentioned. A lot of countries signed the Paris accord, but signing a bit of paper and actually doing something are completely different matters for many countries. I think the Chinese must have buried their copy in the Gobi desert, or maybe chucked it into a coal fired generator. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anybody know how much c02 labours extra 300,000 houses a year project would commit to? Bricks, concrete, diggers, sand tens of thousands of men commuting, trucks delivering, top water run off from hard surfaces causing extra flooding. What no idea?. How about the 200 billion pounds infrastructure projects, the man hours required for free broadband everywhere, 40 new hospitals, what's the c02 emissions on building them?. Is somebody going to magic up some magic energy to go with the magic money tree.
Probably less than the total emissions from one day of forest fires in the Amazon.
.
Ok egghead how much do you wanna bet?.
Should we do the maths?.
I'm willing to bet your not right, in fact your so wrong your wronger "Sure do it. Prove me wrong. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
The Egghead | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/Sentinel-5P/Monitoring_air_pollution_from_fires Someone should let ESA know that they aren't environmental scientists and that they don't know what they are doing. Oh and that they are idiots too. The Egghead ". There still not climate scientists egg head. B- must try harder. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anybody know how much c02 labours extra 300,000 houses a year project would commit to? Bricks, concrete, diggers, sand tens of thousands of men commuting, trucks delivering, top water run off from hard surfaces causing extra flooding. What no idea?. How about the 200 billion pounds infrastructure projects, the man hours required for free broadband everywhere, 40 new hospitals, what's the c02 emissions on building them?. Is somebody going to magic up some magic energy to go with the magic money tree.
Probably less than the total emissions from one day of forest fires in the Amazon.
.
Ok egghead how much do you wanna bet?.
Should we do the maths?.
I'm willing to bet your not right, in fact your so wrong your wronger
Sure do it. Prove me wrong.". Average house requires about 80 tonnes of c02 X that by the 500,000 houses a year labour plan on building gives you 40 million tonnes of c02 per year, add on further requirements that extra housing on that scale requires,ie drains, sewer works roads, electrification etc etc and it tallys to about 55 million tonnes of c02 per year over labours five years gives 275 million tonnes of c02. Trees give out roughly twice the c02 as weight, ten thousand trees per sq mile,7000 sq miles on fire which is 80% greater than normal so the abnormal amount is 5600sq miles 5600x5000 trees psqm gives 28 million trees burnt down X an average of ten tonnes per tree gives 280 million tonnes X 2(c02 ratio to weight roughly) 520 million tonnes of c02. I've been generous on those figures as much is scrub and not forest. 275 million tonnes of c02 for labours house building plans 520 million tonnes for a years abnormal fires in the Amazon. Of course that doesn't allow for the forest regrowth, that takes in the exact same amount of c02 as was emitted during the fires whereas houses, well they don't take back in any c02, they just go on and on emitting c02 long after there built, the real problem is of course deforestation. But now we can see that Corbyns house building scheme is far far far worse than all the Amazon forest fires put together, you'll be dead against it won't you?. We all got bias egghead | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/Sentinel-5P/Monitoring_air_pollution_from_fires Someone should let ESA know that they aren't environmental scientists and that they don't know what they are doing. Oh and that they are idiots too. The Egghead .
There still not climate scientists egg head.
B- must try harder."Firstly IPCC reports aren't all from scientists. They are influenced by "policy makers" with non scientific backgrounds. Secondly are you suggesting that ESA has been carrying out multimillion € environmental projects with no environmental scientists? And lastly adding a patronising comment at the end of your posts doesn't make you more right. Just more childish. Still waiting on that math... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/Sentinel-5P/Monitoring_air_pollution_from_fires Someone should let ESA know that they aren't environmental scientists and that they don't know what they are doing. Oh and that they are idiots too. The Egghead .
There still not climate scientists egg head.
B- must try harder.
Firstly IPCC reports aren't all from scientists. They are influenced by "policy makers" with non scientific backgrounds.
Secondly are you suggesting that ESA has been carrying out multimillion € environmental projects with no environmental scientists?
And lastly adding a patronising comment at the end of your posts doesn't make you more right. Just more childish.
Still waiting on that math...". It's above you egghead, what your eyesight is failing as well as your logic. And yea there still not climate scientists. The clues in the name egghead | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anybody know how much c02 labours extra 300,000 houses a year project would commit to? Bricks, concrete, diggers, sand tens of thousands of men commuting, trucks delivering, top water run off from hard surfaces causing extra flooding. What no idea?. How about the 200 billion pounds infrastructure projects, the man hours required for free broadband everywhere, 40 new hospitals, what's the c02 emissions on building them?. Is somebody going to magic up some magic energy to go with the magic money tree.
Probably less than the total emissions from one day of forest fires in the Amazon.
.
Ok egghead how much do you wanna bet?.
Should we do the maths?.
I'm willing to bet your not right, in fact your so wrong your wronger
Sure do it. Prove me wrong..
Average house requires about 80 tonnes of c02 X that by the 500,000 houses a year labour plan on building gives you 40 million tonnes of c02 per year, add on further requirements that extra housing on that scale requires,ie drains, sewer works roads, electrification etc etc and it tallys to about 55 million tonnes of c02 per year over labours five years gives 275 million tonnes of c02.
Trees give out roughly twice the c02 as weight, ten thousand trees per sq mile,7000 sq miles on fire which is 80% greater than normal so the abnormal amount is 5600sq miles 5600x5000 trees psqm gives 28 million trees burnt down X an average of ten tonnes per tree gives 280 million tonnes X 2(c02 ratio to weight roughly) 520 million tonnes of c02.
I've been generous on those figures as much is scrub and not forest.
275 million tonnes of c02 for labours house building plans
520 million tonnes for a years abnormal fires in the Amazon.
Of course that doesn't allow for the forest regrowth, that takes in the exact same amount of c02 as was emitted during the fires whereas houses, well they don't take back in any c02, they just go on and on emitting c02 long after there built, the real problem is of course deforestation.
But now we can see that Corbyns house building scheme is far far far worse than all the Amazon forest fires put together, you'll be dead against it won't you?.
We all got bias egghead "You asked several questions. I was answering your last one on how much CO2 emissions from building hospitals. By the way those 40 hospitals are actually 6. But your make several assumptions that are untrue. The fires are being lit to clear land for farming mainly beef. There is no regrowth. Even if there were it will take decades at least to return to pristine condition. It isn't an "abnormal year" it's a conservative 70% increase year on year. Whereas vehicle emissions 121mt are decreasing 3.4mt per year. That's ENTIRE vehicles emissions for the UK in 2018. Less than half the Amazon fire emissions for the year. And when you talk about emmissions you need to look at things like soot. Looking at CO2 in isolation without carbon monoxide etc etc is cheating. 300 000 empty homes don't have a carbon footprint. They need people in them. People who would still be creating CO2 whether they have new houses or not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/Sentinel-5P/Monitoring_air_pollution_from_fires Someone should let ESA know that they aren't environmental scientists and that they don't know what they are doing. Oh and that they are idiots too. The Egghead .
There still not climate scientists egg head.
B- must try harder.
Firstly IPCC reports aren't all from scientists. They are influenced by "policy makers" with non scientific backgrounds.
Secondly are you suggesting that ESA has been carrying out multimillion € environmental projects with no environmental scientists?
And lastly adding a patronising comment at the end of your posts doesn't make you more right. Just more childish.
Still waiting on that math....
It's above you egghead, what your eyesight is failing as well as your logic.
And yea there still not climate scientists.
The clues in the name egghead "At the time I started writing that post you hadn't posted yours. There's nothing wrong with my eyesight. I'm just not psychic. Seriously? You're going to argue about whether they are environmental scientists or climate change scientists???? What are you? 12? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/Sentinel-5P/Monitoring_air_pollution_from_fires Someone should let ESA know that they aren't environmental scientists and that they don't know what they are doing. Oh and that they are idiots too. The Egghead .
There still not climate scientists egg head.
B- must try harder.
Firstly IPCC reports aren't all from scientists. They are influenced by "policy makers" with non scientific backgrounds.
Secondly are you suggesting that ESA has been carrying out multimillion € environmental projects with no environmental scientists?
And lastly adding a patronising comment at the end of your posts doesn't make you more right. Just more childish.
Still waiting on that math....
It's above you egghead, what your eyesight is failing as well as your logic.
And yea there still not climate scientists.
The clues in the name egghead
At the time I started writing that post you hadn't posted yours. There's nothing wrong with my eyesight. I'm just not psychic.
Seriously? You're going to argue about whether they are environmental scientists or climate change scientists???? What are you? 12?"Sorry that was offensive. Apologies to all 12 year olds. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think, it doesn't matter why the planet is in such a state, nor how long making it worse is taking. The fact is, we need to look after it better, now, because we should! " I agree with that. If we take drastic steps that weren't necessary some billionaire is going to have a 70ft yacht instead of 72ft. If things are as bad as we think they are we are saving the planet. There are things we can't control easily such as alternative fuel souces, but then there are things such as shark extinction that we could stop tomorrow. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This subject always seems to turn into a slanging match, which really is very sad. It's probably the most important issue of our time yet no-one seems to want to debate it sensibly. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that human activity is accelerating climate change. By how much? I don't know and I really don't think anyone, not even climate scientists, can come up with an exact number. Where I tend to fall out with some of the zealots is on the subject of what can we do? Mankind can do something about it but only as a united front. This notion that a small island in the north Atlantic can alter anything on its own (while impoverishing itself in the process) is just nonsense. For example: Britain closes one coal fired power station (Didcot) that had a generating capacity of 1.44 gigawatts. Meanwhile China has 259 gigawatts under development (179 Didcots) which is on top of the 993 gigawatts (689 Didcots) it already has. The UK’s total generating capacity in all forms is 85 gigawatts, less than 7% of China's total. If Britain gave up using electricity entirely, it would make no difference to the impact of Chinese coal burning. On top of that India has now hit 200 gigawatts (139 Didcots) and still growing. A little side anecdote is that earlier this year we were on a cruise ship that called in at Bangalore (or New Mangalore as they like to call it these days) We were still a few miles offshore when I got a smell in my nose that I hadn't experienced since my childhood. That strong smell of burned sulphur that used to hang over British towns and cities when everyone had a coal fire. As we docked the source became obvious. A large coal depot on the dockside that was smouldering away at various points with a cloud of acrid black smoke being pushed out to sea. Then there is Brazil and Indonesia. Burning thousands of square miles of rain forest which not only pumps tons of CO2 into the atmosphere it also destroys the planets natural filters as well. Mankind as a whole needs to find an answer and has to work together. But one small country building a few windmills, slapping green taxes on everything, and banning diesels from city centres may salve a few consciences but it won't make a jot of difference to the overall picture. In fact it could actually be counter productive. If for example green taxes were to drive manufacturing to say China. Then they would need to build more coal fired power stations to satisfy the demand. It's a worldwide problem that needs a worldwide answer, but I don't see it coming any time soon. Maybe better to prepare for it rather than futile, Canute like, attempts to stop it. Nobody knows "exactly". That is a foolish yardstick to use. Base it on a risk analysis. Almost any investment made now will cost vast amounts less than dealing with the consequences of even a proportion of the expected risk being realised. The entire automotive and road transport industry is shifting to battery and hydrogen fuel cells. Billions of investment. The aerospace industry is doing the same with an early switch to biofuels as a start. We are not doing anything "on our own". That's what the Paris Climate Accord was about. Unfortunately the USA has decided to stick its fingers in its ears and go "lalala" so that they can make money in the short term for their chums giving other countries the pretext to do the same. However, you can even put that aside now. The economics of renewable energy make the technology move pretty much inevitable. This is with no subsidy. The oil and coal industries are heavily subsidised despite the huge profits being made for decades. So the argument for having a lead in developing the technology as a country is compelling. So no, I don't think that the argument to do nothing and prepare for disaster is the right one. We cannot afford the disaster. The right technology could prevent it and we could make money doing it. Then tell that to the Chinese. They have no interest whatsoever in going green and won't have for the foreseeable future. If ever. It seems that many are more than happy to trash the western economy's and if, it won't, but if it would make any difference at all then you could make an argument for it. The only difference turning the lights out will make is that you won't see your feet getting wet. " Are you basing what you are writing on data, opinion or "common sense"? I suggest that you look up the per capita CO2 outputs per country. Then I suggest you look up which is the biggest investor in renewable technologies moving and which is the biggest generator. There are a lot of people in China so in absolute terms CO2 emissions are high, but they are a doing rather more than many. You could just ignore my suggestion and continue to write having chosen not to learn, or you could share what you discover. I'll wait. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This subject always seems to turn into a slanging match, which really is very sad. It's probably the most important issue of our time yet no-one seems to want to debate it sensibly. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that human activity is accelerating climate change. By how much? I don't know and I really don't think anyone, not even climate scientists, can come up with an exact number. Where I tend to fall out with some of the zealots is on the subject of what can we do? Mankind can do something about it but only as a united front. This notion that a small island in the north Atlantic can alter anything on its own (while impoverishing itself in the process) is just nonsense. For example: Britain closes one coal fired power station (Didcot) that had a generating capacity of 1.44 gigawatts. Meanwhile China has 259 gigawatts under development (179 Didcots) which is on top of the 993 gigawatts (689 Didcots) it already has. The UK’s total generating capacity in all forms is 85 gigawatts, less than 7% of China's total. If Britain gave up using electricity entirely, it would make no difference to the impact of Chinese coal burning. On top of that India has now hit 200 gigawatts (139 Didcots) and still growing. A little side anecdote is that earlier this year we were on a cruise ship that called in at Bangalore (or New Mangalore as they like to call it these days) We were still a few miles offshore when I got a smell in my nose that I hadn't experienced since my childhood. That strong smell of burned sulphur that used to hang over British towns and cities when everyone had a coal fire. As we docked the source became obvious. A large coal depot on the dockside that was smouldering away at various points with a cloud of acrid black smoke being pushed out to sea. Then there is Brazil and Indonesia. Burning thousands of square miles of rain forest which not only pumps tons of CO2 into the atmosphere it also destroys the planets natural filters as well. Mankind as a whole needs to find an answer and has to work together. But one small country building a few windmills, slapping green taxes on everything, and banning diesels from city centres may salve a few consciences but it won't make a jot of difference to the overall picture. In fact it could actually be counter productive. If for example green taxes were to drive manufacturing to say China. Then they would need to build more coal fired power stations to satisfy the demand. It's a worldwide problem that needs a worldwide answer, but I don't see it coming any time soon. Maybe better to prepare for it rather than futile, Canute like, attempts to stop it. Nobody knows "exactly". That is a foolish yardstick to use. Base it on a risk analysis. Almost any investment made now will cost vast amounts less than dealing with the consequences of even a proportion of the expected risk being realised. The entire automotive and road transport industry is shifting to battery and hydrogen fuel cells. Billions of investment. The aerospace industry is doing the same with an early switch to biofuels as a start. We are not doing anything "on our own". That's what the Paris Climate Accord was about. Unfortunately the USA has decided to stick its fingers in its ears and go "lalala" so that they can make money in the short term for their chums giving other countries the pretext to do the same. However, you can even put that aside now. The economics of renewable energy make the technology move pretty much inevitable. This is with no subsidy. The oil and coal industries are heavily subsidised despite the huge profits being made for decades. So the argument for having a lead in developing the technology as a country is compelling. So no, I don't think that the argument to do nothing and prepare for disaster is the right one. We cannot afford the disaster. The right technology could prevent it and we could make money doing it. Then tell that to the Chinese. They have no interest whatsoever in going green and won't have for the foreseeable future. If ever. It seems that many are more than happy to trash the western economy's and if, it won't, but if it would make any difference at all then you could make an argument for it. The only difference turning the lights out will make is that you won't see your feet getting wet. Are you basing what you are writing on data, opinion or "common sense"? I suggest that you look up the per capita CO2 outputs per country. Then I suggest you look up which is the biggest investor in renewable technologies moving and which is the biggest generator. There are a lot of people in China so in absolute terms CO2 emissions are high, but they are a doing rather more than many. You could just ignore my suggestion and continue to write having chosen not to learn, or you could share what you discover. I'll wait." I'm getting that China is 47th in the world per capita. Not bad considering that a lot of our industry has been outsourced there as one of our more learned members of fab has pointed out. Good point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sweet baby Jesus it’s like a bloody kindergarten in here." It'll get better once the nurse comes around and gives everyone their meds. Thankfully it's difficult to test in a straight jacket | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The aerospace industry is doing the same with an early switch to biofuels as a start. We are not doing anything "on our own". That's what the Paris Climate Accord was about. Unfortunately the USA has decided to stick its fingers in its ears and go "lalala" so that they can make money in the short term for their chums giving other countries the pretext to do the same. Firstly I'll pick up on the bio fuel point. Bio fuel is doing as much, if not more, harm as fossil fuel. Why do you think they are burning forests in Indonesia? (among other places) To plant palms for palm oil to make bio fuel. As for the big bad USA bogeyman. True Trump hasn't covered himself in glory on this one. However just to single out the USA to me smacks of the "political agenda" that the OP mentioned. A lot of countries signed the Paris accord, but signing a bit of paper and actually doing something are completely different matters for many countries. I think the Chinese must have buried their copy in the Gobi desert, or maybe chucked it into a coal fired generator." Palm oil shouldn't be used as feedstock for biofuels. It is used now because it is cheaper than oil derived fuel. They are burning jungles because corruption allows them to. Why are they burning them in Brazil? That requires regulation. An audit trail can be put in place very easily. Funnily enough there are lots of other plants that can be used instead. The USA has deliberately moved to deregulate environmental controls for financial gain. It's corruption, plain and simple. As I said, with that lead from the USA states that also want to follow the same path now have a pretext. Again, have a look at the actual data on China. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This subject always seems to turn into a slanging match, which really is very sad. It's probably the most important issue of our time yet no-one seems to want to debate it sensibly. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that human activity is accelerating climate change. By how much? I don't know and I really don't think anyone, not even climate scientists, can come up with an exact number. Where I tend to fall out with some of the zealots is on the subject of what can we do? Mankind can do something about it but only as a united front. This notion that a small island in the north Atlantic can alter anything on its own (while impoverishing itself in the process) is just nonsense. For example: Britain closes one coal fired power station (Didcot) that had a generating capacity of 1.44 gigawatts. Meanwhile China has 259 gigawatts under development (179 Didcots) which is on top of the 993 gigawatts (689 Didcots) it already has. The UK’s total generating capacity in all forms is 85 gigawatts, less than 7% of China's total. If Britain gave up using electricity entirely, it would make no difference to the impact of Chinese coal burning. On top of that India has now hit 200 gigawatts (139 Didcots) and still growing. A little side anecdote is that earlier this year we were on a cruise ship that called in at Bangalore (or New Mangalore as they like to call it these days) We were still a few miles offshore when I got a smell in my nose that I hadn't experienced since my childhood. That strong smell of burned sulphur that used to hang over British towns and cities when everyone had a coal fire. As we docked the source became obvious. A large coal depot on the dockside that was smouldering away at various points with a cloud of acrid black smoke being pushed out to sea. Then there is Brazil and Indonesia. Burning thousands of square miles of rain forest which not only pumps tons of CO2 into the atmosphere it also destroys the planets natural filters as well. Mankind as a whole needs to find an answer and has to work together. But one small country building a few windmills, slapping green taxes on everything, and banning diesels from city centres may salve a few consciences but it won't make a jot of difference to the overall picture. In fact it could actually be counter productive. If for example green taxes were to drive manufacturing to say China. Then they would need to build more coal fired power stations to satisfy the demand. It's a worldwide problem that needs a worldwide answer, but I don't see it coming any time soon. Maybe better to prepare for it rather than futile, Canute like, attempts to stop it. Nobody knows "exactly". That is a foolish yardstick to use. Base it on a risk analysis. Almost any investment made now will cost vast amounts less than dealing with the consequences of even a proportion of the expected risk being realised. The entire automotive and road transport industry is shifting to battery and hydrogen fuel cells. Billions of investment. The aerospace industry is doing the same with an early switch to biofuels as a start. We are not doing anything "on our own". That's what the Paris Climate Accord was about. Unfortunately the USA has decided to stick its fingers in its ears and go "lalala" so that they can make money in the short term for their chums giving other countries the pretext to do the same. However, you can even put that aside now. The economics of renewable energy make the technology move pretty much inevitable. This is with no subsidy. The oil and coal industries are heavily subsidised despite the huge profits being made for decades. So the argument for having a lead in developing the technology as a country is compelling. So no, I don't think that the argument to do nothing and prepare for disaster is the right one. We cannot afford the disaster. The right technology could prevent it and we could make money doing it. Then tell that to the Chinese. They have no interest whatsoever in going green and won't have for the foreseeable future. If ever. It seems that many are more than happy to trash the western economy's and if, it won't, but if it would make any difference at all then you could make an argument for it. The only difference turning the lights out will make is that you won't see your feet getting wet. Are you basing what you are writing on data, opinion or "common sense"? I suggest that you look up the per capita CO2 outputs per country. Then I suggest you look up which is the biggest investor in renewable technologies moving and which is the biggest generator. There are a lot of people in China so in absolute terms CO2 emissions are high, but they are a doing rather more than many. You could just ignore my suggestion and continue to write having chosen not to learn, or you could share what you discover. I'll wait. I'm getting that China is 47th in the world per capita. Not bad considering that a lot of our industry has been outsourced there as one of our more learned members of fab has pointed out. Good point. "I'm not sure they look that good. Check the chart on economicshelp. It uses the latest World Bank Data. There are other sources though. I'd quite like the other poster to find out for himself though. I'm quite sure that he won't believe me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The aerospace industry is doing the same with an early switch to biofuels as a start. We are not doing anything "on our own". That's what the Paris Climate Accord was about. Unfortunately the USA has decided to stick its fingers in its ears and go "lalala" so that they can make money in the short term for their chums giving other countries the pretext to do the same. Firstly I'll pick up on the bio fuel point. Bio fuel is doing as much, if not more, harm as fossil fuel. Why do you think they are burning forests in Indonesia? (among other places) To plant palms for palm oil to make bio fuel. As for the big bad USA bogeyman. True Trump hasn't covered himself in glory on this one. However just to single out the USA to me smacks of the "political agenda" that the OP mentioned. A lot of countries signed the Paris accord, but signing a bit of paper and actually doing something are completely different matters for many countries. I think the Chinese must have buried their copy in the Gobi desert, or maybe chucked it into a coal fired generator. Palm oil shouldn't be used as feedstock for biofuels. It is used now because it is cheaper than oil derived fuel. They are burning jungles because corruption allows them to. Why are they burning them in Brazil? That requires regulation. An audit trail can be put in place very easily. Funnily enough there are lots of other plants that can be used instead. The USA has deliberately moved to deregulate environmental controls for financial gain. It's corruption, plain and simple. As I said, with that lead from the USA states that also want to follow the same path now have a pretext. Again, have a look at the actual data on China." What is your opinion of the IPCC? Do you think they are representing data accurately? Or do you think they are a middle man in the process open to undue influence by industry? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This subject always seems to turn into a slanging match, which really is very sad. It's probably the most important issue of our time yet no-one seems to want to debate it sensibly. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that human activity is accelerating climate change. By how much? I don't know and I really don't think anyone, not even climate scientists, can come up with an exact number. Where I tend to fall out with some of the zealots is on the subject of what can we do? Mankind can do something about it but only as a united front. This notion that a small island in the north Atlantic can alter anything on its own (while impoverishing itself in the process) is just nonsense. For example: Britain closes one coal fired power station (Didcot) that had a generating capacity of 1.44 gigawatts. Meanwhile China has 259 gigawatts under development (179 Didcots) which is on top of the 993 gigawatts (689 Didcots) it already has. The UK’s total generating capacity in all forms is 85 gigawatts, less than 7% of China's total. If Britain gave up using electricity entirely, it would make no difference to the impact of Chinese coal burning. On top of that India has now hit 200 gigawatts (139 Didcots) and still growing. A little side anecdote is that earlier this year we were on a cruise ship that called in at Bangalore (or New Mangalore as they like to call it these days) We were still a few miles offshore when I got a smell in my nose that I hadn't experienced since my childhood. That strong smell of burned sulphur that used to hang over British towns and cities when everyone had a coal fire. As we docked the source became obvious. A large coal depot on the dockside that was smouldering away at various points with a cloud of acrid black smoke being pushed out to sea. Then there is Brazil and Indonesia. Burning thousands of square miles of rain forest which not only pumps tons of CO2 into the atmosphere it also destroys the planets natural filters as well. Mankind as a whole needs to find an answer and has to work together. But one small country building a few windmills, slapping green taxes on everything, and banning diesels from city centres may salve a few consciences but it won't make a jot of difference to the overall picture. In fact it could actually be counter productive. If for example green taxes were to drive manufacturing to say China. Then they would need to build more coal fired power stations to satisfy the demand. It's a worldwide problem that needs a worldwide answer, but I don't see it coming any time soon. Maybe better to prepare for it rather than futile, Canute like, attempts to stop it. Nobody knows "exactly". That is a foolish yardstick to use. Base it on a risk analysis. Almost any investment made now will cost vast amounts less than dealing with the consequences of even a proportion of the expected risk being realised. The entire automotive and road transport industry is shifting to battery and hydrogen fuel cells. Billions of investment. The aerospace industry is doing the same with an early switch to biofuels as a start. We are not doing anything "on our own". That's what the Paris Climate Accord was about. Unfortunately the USA has decided to stick its fingers in its ears and go "lalala" so that they can make money in the short term for their chums giving other countries the pretext to do the same. However, you can even put that aside now. The economics of renewable energy make the technology move pretty much inevitable. This is with no subsidy. The oil and coal industries are heavily subsidised despite the huge profits being made for decades. So the argument for having a lead in developing the technology as a country is compelling. So no, I don't think that the argument to do nothing and prepare for disaster is the right one. We cannot afford the disaster. The right technology could prevent it and we could make money doing it. Then tell that to the Chinese. They have no interest whatsoever in going green and won't have for the foreseeable future. If ever. It seems that many are more than happy to trash the western economy's and if, it won't, but if it would make any difference at all then you could make an argument for it. The only difference turning the lights out will make is that you won't see your feet getting wet. Are you basing what you are writing on data, opinion or "common sense"? I suggest that you look up the per capita CO2 outputs per country. Then I suggest you look up which is the biggest investor in renewable technologies moving and which is the biggest generator. There are a lot of people in China so in absolute terms CO2 emissions are high, but they are a doing rather more than many. You could just ignore my suggestion and continue to write having chosen not to learn, or you could share what you discover. I'll wait. I'm getting that China is 47th in the world per capita. Not bad considering that a lot of our industry has been outsourced there as one of our more learned members of fab has pointed out. Good point.
I'm not sure they look that good.
Check the chart on economicshelp. It uses the latest World Bank Data.
There are other sources though.
I'd quite like the other poster to find out for himself though. I'm quite sure that he won't believe me."Unfortunately that is my fault for quoting from one source without double checking with another. It's a bit frustrating to bring up a number of counter arguments that get ignored only to have someone pounce on one word and argue the semantics....  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anybody know how much c02 labours extra 300,000 houses a year project would commit to? Bricks, concrete, diggers, sand tens of thousands of men commuting, trucks delivering, top water run off from hard surfaces causing extra flooding. What no idea?. How about the 200 billion pounds infrastructure projects, the man hours required for free broadband everywhere, 40 new hospitals, what's the c02 emissions on building them?. Is somebody going to magic up some magic energy to go with the magic money tree.
Probably less than the total emissions from one day of forest fires in the Amazon.
.
Ok egghead how much do you wanna bet?.
Should we do the maths?.
I'm willing to bet your not right, in fact your so wrong your wronger
Sure do it. Prove me wrong..
Average house requires about 80 tonnes of c02 X that by the 500,000 houses a year labour plan on building gives you 40 million tonnes of c02 per year, add on further requirements that extra housing on that scale requires,ie drains, sewer works roads, electrification etc etc and it tallys to about 55 million tonnes of c02 per year over labours five years gives 275 million tonnes of c02.
Trees give out roughly twice the c02 as weight, ten thousand trees per sq mile,7000 sq miles on fire which is 80% greater than normal so the abnormal amount is 5600sq miles 5600x5000 trees psqm gives 28 million trees burnt down X an average of ten tonnes per tree gives 280 million tonnes X 2(c02 ratio to weight roughly) 520 million tonnes of c02.
I've been generous on those figures as much is scrub and not forest.
275 million tonnes of c02 for labours house building plans
520 million tonnes for a years abnormal fires in the Amazon.
Of course that doesn't allow for the forest regrowth, that takes in the exact same amount of c02 as was emitted during the fires whereas houses, well they don't take back in any c02, they just go on and on emitting c02 long after there built, the real problem is of course deforestation.
But now we can see that Corbyns house building scheme is far far far worse than all the Amazon forest fires put together, you'll be dead against it won't you?.
We all got bias egghead
You asked several questions. I was answering your last one on how much CO2 emissions from building hospitals. By the way those 40 hospitals are actually 6.
But your make several assumptions that are untrue. The fires are being lit to clear land for farming mainly beef.(false, most of the fires are not deliberate they've started from an unusually dry spring) There is no regrowth.(false 65% will regrow within 2 months) Even if there were it will take decades at least to return to pristine condition.(false this is the Amazon it grows at ridiculously fast rates)
It isn't an "abnormal year"(false, yes it is the last comparable year was 11 years ago) it's a conservative 70% increase year on year. Whereas vehicle emissions 121mt are decreasing 3.4mt per year. That's ENTIRE vehicles emissions for the UK in 2018. Less than half the Amazon fire emissions for the year.(false I've already shown you that Amazon fires are carbon neutral, it's deforestation that's the problem)
And when you talk about emmissions you need to look at things like soot.(false IPCC already take into account the cooling effect of sulphur particulates) Looking at CO2 in isolation without carbon monoxide (false carbon monoxide isn't even a greenhouse gas, it's a gas caused by unburnt processes)etc etc is cheating.
300 000 empty homes don't have a carbon footprint.(false, it's called upkeep, maintenance,) They need people in them. People who would still be creating CO2 whether they have new houses or not.(false, Houses located five miles from main services have twice the carbon footprint of houses inside two miles, presumption is new houses tend to be on the outskirts).
". I corrected all your simple mistakes egghead. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anybody know how much c02 labours extra 300,000 houses a year project would commit to? Bricks, concrete, diggers, sand tens of thousands of men commuting, trucks delivering, top water run off from hard surfaces causing extra flooding. What no idea?. How about the 200 billion pounds infrastructure projects, the man hours required for free broadband everywhere, 40 new hospitals, what's the c02 emissions on building them?. Is somebody going to magic up some magic energy to go with the magic money tree.
Probably less than the total emissions from one day of forest fires in the Amazon.
.
Ok egghead how much do you wanna bet?.
Should we do the maths?.
I'm willing to bet your not right, in fact your so wrong your wronger
Sure do it. Prove me wrong..
Average house requires about 80 tonnes of c02 X that by the 500,000 houses a year labour plan on building gives you 40 million tonnes of c02 per year, add on further requirements that extra housing on that scale requires,ie drains, sewer works roads, electrification etc etc and it tallys to about 55 million tonnes of c02 per year over labours five years gives 275 million tonnes of c02.
Trees give out roughly twice the c02 as weight, ten thousand trees per sq mile,7000 sq miles on fire which is 80% greater than normal so the abnormal amount is 5600sq miles 5600x5000 trees psqm gives 28 million trees burnt down X an average of ten tonnes per tree gives 280 million tonnes X 2(c02 ratio to weight roughly) 520 million tonnes of c02.
I've been generous on those figures as much is scrub and not forest.
275 million tonnes of c02 for labours house building plans
520 million tonnes for a years abnormal fires in the Amazon.
Of course that doesn't allow for the forest regrowth, that takes in the exact same amount of c02 as was emitted during the fires whereas houses, well they don't take back in any c02, they just go on and on emitting c02 long after there built, the real problem is of course deforestation.
But now we can see that Corbyns house building scheme is far far far worse than all the Amazon forest fires put together, you'll be dead against it won't you?.
We all got bias egghead
You asked several questions. I was answering your last one on how much CO2 emissions from building hospitals. By the way those 40 hospitals are actually 6.
But your make several assumptions that are untrue. The fires are being lit to clear land for farming mainly beef.(false, most of the fires are not deliberate they've started from an unusually dry spring) There is no regrowth.(false 65% will regrow within 2 months) Even if there were it will take decades at least to return to pristine condition.(false this is the Amazon it grows at ridiculously fast rates)
It isn't an "abnormal year"(false, yes it is the last comparable year was 11 years ago) it's a conservative 70% increase year on year. Whereas vehicle emissions 121mt are decreasing 3.4mt per year. That's ENTIRE vehicles emissions for the UK in 2018. Less than half the Amazon fire emissions for the year.(false I've already shown you that Amazon fires are carbon neutral, it's deforestation that's the problem)
And when you talk about emmissions you need to look at things like soot.(false IPCC already take into account the cooling effect of sulphur particulates) Looking at CO2 in isolation without carbon monoxide (false carbon monoxide isn't even a greenhouse gas, it's a gas caused by unburnt processes)etc etc is cheating.
300 000 empty homes don't have a carbon footprint.(false, it's called upkeep, maintenance,) They need people in them. People who would still be creating CO2 whether they have new houses or not.(false, Houses located five miles from main services have twice the carbon footprint of houses inside two miles, presumption is new houses tend to be on the outskirts).
.
I corrected all your simple mistakes egghead. ""What is your point? That there is a problem but it's not that big a problem? There is a really big problem but we are doing enough? There is no problem and we don't have to do anything? You are right about some detail and that's what's important?" It looks like it's all about the last option and your fragile teenager ego
However, it would be interesting to see if you know why you do all of this writing | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anybody know how much c02 labours extra 300,000 houses a year project would commit to? Bricks, concrete, diggers, sand tens of thousands of men commuting, trucks delivering, top water run off from hard surfaces causing extra flooding. What no idea?. How about the 200 billion pounds infrastructure projects, the man hours required for free broadband everywhere, 40 new hospitals, what's the c02 emissions on building them?. Is somebody going to magic up some magic energy to go with the magic money tree.
Probably less than the total emissions from one day of forest fires in the Amazon.
.
Ok egghead how much do you wanna bet?.
Should we do the maths?.
I'm willing to bet your not right, in fact your so wrong your wronger
Sure do it. Prove me wrong..
Average house requires about 80 tonnes of c02 X that by the 500,000 houses a year labour plan on building gives you 40 million tonnes of c02 per year, add on further requirements that extra housing on that scale requires,ie drains, sewer works roads, electrification etc etc and it tallys to about 55 million tonnes of c02 per year over labours five years gives 275 million tonnes of c02.
Trees give out roughly twice the c02 as weight, ten thousand trees per sq mile,7000 sq miles on fire which is 80% greater than normal so the abnormal amount is 5600sq miles 5600x5000 trees psqm gives 28 million trees burnt down X an average of ten tonnes per tree gives 280 million tonnes X 2(c02 ratio to weight roughly) 520 million tonnes of c02.
I've been generous on those figures as much is scrub and not forest.
275 million tonnes of c02 for labours house building plans
520 million tonnes for a years abnormal fires in the Amazon.
Of course that doesn't allow for the forest regrowth, that takes in the exact same amount of c02 as was emitted during the fires whereas houses, well they don't take back in any c02, they just go on and on emitting c02 long after there built, the real problem is of course deforestation.
But now we can see that Corbyns house building scheme is far far far worse than all the Amazon forest fires put together, you'll be dead against it won't you?.
We all got bias egghead
You asked several questions. I was answering your last one on how much CO2 emissions from building hospitals. By the way those 40 hospitals are actually 6.
But your make several assumptions that are untrue. The fires are being lit to clear land for farming mainly beef.(false, most of the fires are not deliberate they've started from an unusually dry spring) There is no regrowth.(false 65% will regrow within 2 months) Even if there were it will take decades at least to return to pristine condition.(false this is the Amazon it grows at ridiculously fast rates)
It isn't an "abnormal year"(false, yes it is the last comparable year was 11 years ago) it's a conservative 70% increase year on year. Whereas vehicle emissions 121mt are decreasing 3.4mt per year. That's ENTIRE vehicles emissions for the UK in 2018. Less than half the Amazon fire emissions for the year.(false I've already shown you that Amazon fires are carbon neutral, it's deforestation that's the problem)
And when you talk about emmissions you need to look at things like soot.(false IPCC already take into account the cooling effect of sulphur particulates) Looking at CO2 in isolation without carbon monoxide (false carbon monoxide isn't even a greenhouse gas, it's a gas caused by unburnt processes)etc etc is cheating.
300 000 empty homes don't have a carbon footprint.(false, it's called upkeep, maintenance,) They need people in them. People who would still be creating CO2 whether they have new houses or not.(false, Houses located five miles from main services have twice the carbon footprint of houses inside two miles, presumption is new houses tend to be on the outskirts).
.
I corrected all your simple mistakes egghead.
"What is your point?
That there is a problem but it's not that big a problem?
There is a really big problem but we are doing enough?
There is no problem and we don't have to do anything?
You are right about some detail and that's what's important?"
It looks like it's all about the last option and your fragile teenager ego
However, it would be interesting to see if you know why you do all of this writing "It's like arguing with a teenager. I give up. He actually proved himself wrong because all the tiny points confirmed that you can't use household carbon footprint figures because the people on those houses didn't magically appear. They were leaving a carbon footprint before so you have to know the difference. Not only does he obsess with pedantic nitpicking he doesn't do it properly. For example CO is an emmission. That's the word I used. I never said it was a greenhouse gas. I was looking for a meaningful discussion and got a didn't did didn't did type with a manchild. I think I'll go for a root canal treatment because it's more fun 
Be nice to the children | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anybody know how much c02 labours extra 300,000 houses a year project would commit to? Bricks, concrete, diggers, sand tens of thousands of men commuting, trucks delivering, top water run off from hard surfaces causing extra flooding. What no idea?. How about the 200 billion pounds infrastructure projects, the man hours required for free broadband everywhere, 40 new hospitals, what's the c02 emissions on building them?. Is somebody going to magic up some magic energy to go with the magic money tree.
Probably less than the total emissions from one day of forest fires in the Amazon.
.
Ok egghead how much do you wanna bet?.
Should we do the maths?.
I'm willing to bet your not right, in fact your so wrong your wronger
Sure do it. Prove me wrong..
Average house requires about 80 tonnes of c02 X that by the 500,000 houses a year labour plan on building gives you 40 million tonnes of c02 per year, add on further requirements that extra housing on that scale requires,ie drains, sewer works roads, electrification etc etc and it tallys to about 55 million tonnes of c02 per year over labours five years gives 275 million tonnes of c02.
Trees give out roughly twice the c02 as weight, ten thousand trees per sq mile,7000 sq miles on fire which is 80% greater than normal so the abnormal amount is 5600sq miles 5600x5000 trees psqm gives 28 million trees burnt down X an average of ten tonnes per tree gives 280 million tonnes X 2(c02 ratio to weight roughly) 520 million tonnes of c02.
I've been generous on those figures as much is scrub and not forest.
275 million tonnes of c02 for labours house building plans
520 million tonnes for a years abnormal fires in the Amazon.
Of course that doesn't allow for the forest regrowth, that takes in the exact same amount of c02 as was emitted during the fires whereas houses, well they don't take back in any c02, they just go on and on emitting c02 long after there built, the real problem is of course deforestation.
But now we can see that Corbyns house building scheme is far far far worse than all the Amazon forest fires put together, you'll be dead against it won't you?.
We all got bias egghead
You asked several questions. I was answering your last one on how much CO2 emissions from building hospitals. By the way those 40 hospitals are actually 6.
But your make several assumptions that are untrue. The fires are being lit to clear land for farming mainly beef.(false, most of the fires are not deliberate they've started from an unusually dry spring) There is no regrowth.(false 65% will regrow within 2 months) Even if there were it will take decades at least to return to pristine condition.(false this is the Amazon it grows at ridiculously fast rates)
It isn't an "abnormal year"(false, yes it is the last comparable year was 11 years ago) it's a conservative 70% increase year on year. Whereas vehicle emissions 121mt are decreasing 3.4mt per year. That's ENTIRE vehicles emissions for the UK in 2018. Less than half the Amazon fire emissions for the year.(false I've already shown you that Amazon fires are carbon neutral, it's deforestation that's the problem)
And when you talk about emmissions you need to look at things like soot.(false IPCC already take into account the cooling effect of sulphur particulates) Looking at CO2 in isolation without carbon monoxide (false carbon monoxide isn't even a greenhouse gas, it's a gas caused by unburnt processes)etc etc is cheating.
300 000 empty homes don't have a carbon footprint.(false, it's called upkeep, maintenance,) They need people in them. People who would still be creating CO2 whether they have new houses or not.(false, Houses located five miles from main services have twice the carbon footprint of houses inside two miles, presumption is new houses tend to be on the outskirts).
.
I corrected all your simple mistakes egghead.
"What is your point?
That there is a problem but it's not that big a problem?
There is a really big problem but we are doing enough?
There is no problem and we don't have to do anything?
You are right about some detail and that's what's important?"
It looks like it's all about the last option and your fragile teenager ego
However, it would be interesting to see if you know why you do all of this writing
It's like arguing with a teenager. I give up. He actually proved himself wrong because all the tiny points confirmed that you can't use household carbon footprint figures because the people on those houses didn't magically appear. They were leaving a carbon footprint before so you have to know the difference.
Not only does he obsess with pedantic nitpicking he doesn't do it properly. For example CO is an emmission. That's the word I used. I never said it was a greenhouse gas.
I was looking for a meaningful discussion and got a didn't did didn't did type with a manchild.
I think I'll go for a root canal treatment because it's more fun
Be nice to the children "You hung on in there longer than I was arsed to. Some people are willfully ignorant. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anybody know how much c02 labours extra 300,000 houses a year project would commit to? Bricks, concrete, diggers, sand tens of thousands of men commuting, trucks delivering, top water run off from hard surfaces causing extra flooding. What no idea?. How about the 200 billion pounds infrastructure projects, the man hours required for free broadband everywhere, 40 new hospitals, what's the c02 emissions on building them?. Is somebody going to magic up some magic energy to go with the magic money tree.
Probably less than the total emissions from one day of forest fires in the Amazon.
.
Ok egghead how much do you wanna bet?.
Should we do the maths?.
I'm willing to bet your not right, in fact your so wrong your wronger
Sure do it. Prove me wrong..
Average house requires about 80 tonnes of c02 X that by the 500,000 houses a year labour plan on building gives you 40 million tonnes of c02 per year, add on further requirements that extra housing on that scale requires,ie drains, sewer works roads, electrification etc etc and it tallys to about 55 million tonnes of c02 per year over labours five years gives 275 million tonnes of c02.
Trees give out roughly twice the c02 as weight, ten thousand trees per sq mile,7000 sq miles on fire which is 80% greater than normal so the abnormal amount is 5600sq miles 5600x5000 trees psqm gives 28 million trees burnt down X an average of ten tonnes per tree gives 280 million tonnes X 2(c02 ratio to weight roughly) 520 million tonnes of c02.
I've been generous on those figures as much is scrub and not forest.
275 million tonnes of c02 for labours house building plans
520 million tonnes for a years abnormal fires in the Amazon.
Of course that doesn't allow for the forest regrowth, that takes in the exact same amount of c02 as was emitted during the fires whereas houses, well they don't take back in any c02, they just go on and on emitting c02 long after there built, the real problem is of course deforestation.
But now we can see that Corbyns house building scheme is far far far worse than all the Amazon forest fires put together, you'll be dead against it won't you?.
We all got bias egghead
You asked several questions. I was answering your last one on how much CO2 emissions from building hospitals. By the way those 40 hospitals are actually 6.
But your make several assumptions that are untrue. The fires are being lit to clear land for farming mainly beef.(false, most of the fires are not deliberate they've started from an unusually dry spring) There is no regrowth.(false 65% will regrow within 2 months) Even if there were it will take decades at least to return to pristine condition.(false this is the Amazon it grows at ridiculously fast rates)
It isn't an "abnormal year"(false, yes it is the last comparable year was 11 years ago) it's a conservative 70% increase year on year. Whereas vehicle emissions 121mt are decreasing 3.4mt per year. That's ENTIRE vehicles emissions for the UK in 2018. Less than half the Amazon fire emissions for the year.(false I've already shown you that Amazon fires are carbon neutral, it's deforestation that's the problem)
And when you talk about emmissions you need to look at things like soot.(false IPCC already take into account the cooling effect of sulphur particulates) Looking at CO2 in isolation without carbon monoxide (false carbon monoxide isn't even a greenhouse gas, it's a gas caused by unburnt processes)etc etc is cheating.
300 000 empty homes don't have a carbon footprint.(false, it's called upkeep, maintenance,) They need people in them. People who would still be creating CO2 whether they have new houses or not.(false, Houses located five miles from main services have twice the carbon footprint of houses inside two miles, presumption is new houses tend to be on the outskirts).
.
I corrected all your simple mistakes egghead.
"What is your point?
That there is a problem but it's not that big a problem?
There is a really big problem but we are doing enough?
There is no problem and we don't have to do anything?
You are right about some detail and that's what's important?"
It looks like it's all about the last option and your fragile teenager ego
However, it would be interesting to see if you know why you do all of this writing
It's like arguing with a teenager. I give up. He actually proved himself wrong because all the tiny points confirmed that you can't use household carbon footprint figures because the people on those houses didn't magically appear. They were leaving a carbon footprint before so you have to know the difference.
Not only does he obsess with pedantic nitpicking he doesn't do it properly. For example CO is an emmission. That's the word I used. I never said it was a greenhouse gas.
I was looking for a meaningful discussion and got a didn't did didn't did type with a manchild.
I think I'll go for a root canal treatment because it's more fun
Be nice to the children
You hung on in there longer than I was arsed to.
Some people are willfully ignorant."I am reminded of the saying: Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience. But yeah life's too short. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anybody know how much c02 labours extra 300,000 houses a year project would commit to? Bricks, concrete, diggers, sand tens of thousands of men commuting, trucks delivering, top water run off from hard surfaces causing extra flooding. What no idea?. How about the 200 billion pounds infrastructure projects, the man hours required for free broadband everywhere, 40 new hospitals, what's the c02 emissions on building them?. Is somebody going to magic up some magic energy to go with the magic money tree.
Probably less than the total emissions from one day of forest fires in the Amazon.
.
Ok egghead how much do you wanna bet?.
Should we do the maths?.
I'm willing to bet your not right, in fact your so wrong your wronger
Sure do it. Prove me wrong..
Average house requires about 80 tonnes of c02 X that by the 500,000 houses a year labour plan on building gives you 40 million tonnes of c02 per year, add on further requirements that extra housing on that scale requires,ie drains, sewer works roads, electrification etc etc and it tallys to about 55 million tonnes of c02 per year over labours five years gives 275 million tonnes of c02.
Trees give out roughly twice the c02 as weight, ten thousand trees per sq mile,7000 sq miles on fire which is 80% greater than normal so the abnormal amount is 5600sq miles 5600x5000 trees psqm gives 28 million trees burnt down X an average of ten tonnes per tree gives 280 million tonnes X 2(c02 ratio to weight roughly) 520 million tonnes of c02.
I've been generous on those figures as much is scrub and not forest.
275 million tonnes of c02 for labours house building plans
520 million tonnes for a years abnormal fires in the Amazon.
Of course that doesn't allow for the forest regrowth, that takes in the exact same amount of c02 as was emitted during the fires whereas houses, well they don't take back in any c02, they just go on and on emitting c02 long after there built, the real problem is of course deforestation.
But now we can see that Corbyns house building scheme is far far far worse than all the Amazon forest fires put together, you'll be dead against it won't you?.
We all got bias egghead
You asked several questions. I was answering your last one on how much CO2 emissions from building hospitals. By the way those 40 hospitals are actually 6.
But your make several assumptions that are untrue. The fires are being lit to clear land for farming mainly beef.(false, most of the fires are not deliberate they've started from an unusually dry spring) There is no regrowth.(false 65% will regrow within 2 months) Even if there were it will take decades at least to return to pristine condition.(false this is the Amazon it grows at ridiculously fast rates)
It isn't an "abnormal year"(false, yes it is the last comparable year was 11 years ago) it's a conservative 70% increase year on year. Whereas vehicle emissions 121mt are decreasing 3.4mt per year. That's ENTIRE vehicles emissions for the UK in 2018. Less than half the Amazon fire emissions for the year.(false I've already shown you that Amazon fires are carbon neutral, it's deforestation that's the problem)
And when you talk about emmissions you need to look at things like soot.(false IPCC already take into account the cooling effect of sulphur particulates) Looking at CO2 in isolation without carbon monoxide (false carbon monoxide isn't even a greenhouse gas, it's a gas caused by unburnt processes)etc etc is cheating.
300 000 empty homes don't have a carbon footprint.(false, it's called upkeep, maintenance,) They need people in them. People who would still be creating CO2 whether they have new houses or not.(false, Houses located five miles from main services have twice the carbon footprint of houses inside two miles, presumption is new houses tend to be on the outskirts).
.
I corrected all your simple mistakes egghead.
"What is your point?
That there is a problem but it's not that big a problem?
There is a really big problem but we are doing enough?
There is no problem and we don't have to do anything?
You are right about some detail and that's what's important?"
It looks like it's all about the last option and your fragile teenager ego
However, it would be interesting to see if you know why you do all of this writing
It's like arguing with a teenager. I give up. He actually proved himself wrong because all the tiny points confirmed that you can't use household carbon footprint figures because the people on those houses didn't magically appear. They were leaving a carbon footprint before so you have to know the difference.
Not only does he obsess with pedantic nitpicking he doesn't do it properly. For example CO is an emmission. That's the word I used. I never said it was a greenhouse gas.
I was looking for a meaningful discussion and got a didn't did didn't did type with a manchild.
I think I'll go for a root canal treatment because it's more fun
Be nice to the children ". Oh dear dummy come out after being proven wrong yet again!. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For anyone interested in the 300 000 houses (that became 500 000). The median UK household produces 17.1 tonnes of CO2. New build houses are 6 times more efficient. 17.1/6 * 300 000 = 0.855mt Studies showed that 228mt were emitted by Amazon forest fires this year in an article published 30 August 2019. 228mt / 242 days = 0.942mt So now that's cleared up. The actual point being made was people need houses to live in. We don't need to be burning down the Amazon rain forest." . We've been building nearly 300,000 houses for the last two years and labour say it's not enough and will build 200,000 houses of their own 200+300 is 500 egghead. And I already corrected you on Amazon fire emissions, they lose 20,000 km2 a year to deforestation but it's 5.5 million km2 in total do the percentages egghead The vast majority of the fire areas will regrow within weeks. So hardly any of those emissions will be left in the atmosphere, whereas all your new, extra, more housing has c02 built into it, plus c02 footprints for it's lifespan plus c02 footprints for it's inhabitants, further from services higher the footprint (new houses are further away by nature). Now your the one telling everybody we've got 10 years before we're all dead unless we stop emitting c02 but now your keen on emitting c02 and loads of it, why?, because it falls into your socialist utopia bias egghead. And that is why nobody with two brain cells to rub together listens to you or your death cult mutterings. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This thread should be about - why do some people believe the propaganda created by the fossil fuel industry over the actual science. Is it a lack of understanding, or is it that the problem it too big, and it's easier not to think about it. There certainly seems to be some people on here who love a conspiracy theory. Maybe that's part of it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial People can choose not to believe in what's happening. But their belief has no impact on the real world. We are as sure about the science of greenhouse gases kicking off the acceleration in mean global temperature as we are sure the earth isn't flat. " Not everyone agrees that the earth isn't flat. Indeed by some definitions of "flat" one could argue that the world is both "flat" and "spherical" at the same time. But that's not really relevant. The reason why a lot of people refuse to believe in climate change is because the current solutions to the problem seem to them to be worse than the actual problem and it's easier to simply dismiss it as false or unsure science. This believe is further strengthened by the fact that, whilst the science and the facts on the ground are becoming more convincing, there are still anomalies in the science such as the lack of increase in pan evaporation rates and the upper atmosphere not warming as fast as it should be if the science was completely correct to name two. It also doesn't help that anyone who questions climate change are called "climate deniars" as if it was a religious heresy to not believe. It's either science or a believe, it can't be both. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This thread should be about - why do some people believe the propaganda created by the fossil fuel industry over the actual science. Is it a lack of understanding, or is it that the problem it too big, and it's easier not to think about it. There certainly seems to be some people on here who love a conspiracy theory. Maybe that's part of it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial People can choose not to believe in what's happening. But their belief has no impact on the real world. We are as sure about the science of greenhouse gases kicking off the acceleration in mean global temperature as we are sure the earth isn't flat. Not everyone agrees that the earth isn't flat. Indeed by some definitions of "flat" one could argue that the world is both "flat" and "spherical" at the same time. But that's not really relevant. The reason why a lot of people refuse to believe in climate change is because the current solutions to the problem seem to them to be worse than the actual problem and it's easier to simply dismiss it as false or unsure science. This believe is further strengthened by the fact that, whilst the science and the facts on the ground are becoming more convincing, there are still anomalies in the science such as the lack of increase in pan evaporation rates and the upper atmosphere not warming as fast as it should be if the science was completely correct to name two. It also doesn't help that anyone who questions climate change are called "climate deniars" as if it was a religious heresy to not believe. It's either science or a believe, it can't be both. " You've used the word "believe" a lot. Belief isn't required when you have understanding. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This thread should be about - why do some people believe the propaganda created by the fossil fuel industry over the actual science. Is it a lack of understanding, or is it that the problem it too big, and it's easier not to think about it. There certainly seems to be some people on here who love a conspiracy theory. Maybe that's part of it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial People can choose not to believe in what's happening. But their belief has no impact on the real world. We are as sure about the science of greenhouse gases kicking off the acceleration in mean global temperature as we are sure the earth isn't flat. Not everyone agrees that the earth isn't flat. Indeed by some definitions of "flat" one could argue that the world is both "flat" and "spherical" at the same time. But that's not really relevant. The reason why a lot of people refuse to believe in climate change is because the current solutions to the problem seem to them to be worse than the actual problem and it's easier to simply dismiss it as false or unsure science. This believe is further strengthened by the fact that, whilst the science and the facts on the ground are becoming more convincing, there are still anomalies in the science such as the lack of increase in pan evaporation rates and the upper atmosphere not warming as fast as it should be if the science was completely correct to name two. It also doesn't help that anyone who questions climate change are called "climate deniars" as if it was a religious heresy to not believe. It's either science or a believe, it can't be both. " Hillary Clinton recently said in a speech that people are becoming increasingly aware of what's real and what's fiction. We have the IPCC who are not all scientists (some are policy makers with no scientific background whatsoever) as the gold standard in climate change, yet their main criticism is that they understate matters considerably. I have listed article after article on events happening "sooner than expected ". So my question is why are they always quoting the best case scenario? If corporations are willing to plough millions into buying politicians, what stops them influencing the IPCC? Actually in some cases it's what we need to stop doing. We need to stop burning down the rainforest, we need to stop hunting species into extinction etc etc. As I said starting this off the information is all out there. We are spending a lot of money on getting the facts straight. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We simply don't have enough evidence to know what impact we are having and what is unrelated. We know climate change isn't new. There have been ice ages in the past. Weather records need to go back millions of years to extrapolate meaningful data. The information we have is akin to taking a teaspoon of water from the ocean and deciding there's no whales in the teaspoon therefore there are no whales in the ocean." couldnt agree more. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For anyone interested in the 300 000 houses (that became 500 000). The median UK household produces 17.1 tonnes of CO2. New build houses are 6 times more efficient. 17.1/6 * 300 000 = 0.855mt Studies showed that 228mt were emitted by Amazon forest fires this year in an article published 30 August 2019. 228mt / 242 days = 0.942mt So now that's cleared up. The actual point being made was people need houses to live in. We don't need to be burning down the Amazon rain forest.. We've been building nearly 300,000 houses for the last two years and labour say it's not enough and will build 200,000 houses of their own 200+300 is 500 egghead. And I already corrected you on Amazon fire emissions, they lose 20,000 km2 a year to deforestation but it's 5.5 million km2 in total do the percentages egghead The vast majority of the fire areas will regrow within weeks. So hardly any of those emissions will be left in the atmosphere, whereas all your new, extra, more housing has c02 built into it, plus c02 footprints for it's lifespan plus c02 footprints for it's inhabitants, further from services higher the footprint (new houses are further away by nature). Now your the one telling everybody we've got 10 years before we're all dead unless we stop emitting c02 but now your keen on emitting c02 and loads of it, why?, because it falls into your socialist utopia bias egghead. And that is why nobody with two brain cells to rub together listens to you or your death cult mutterings. " Little boy you are trying to cyberbully someone who would wipe the floor with you if there weren't forum rules that you don't seem to think apply to you. The 300 000 is the figure YOU quoted that set off your little obsession to prove me wrong. "Anybody know how much c02 labours extra 300,000 houses a year project would commit to?" Please explain how regrowth occurs when the land is used for farming and mining? Please provide references for this regrowth to happen in weeks. Errrr and that was 12 - 25 years. Not that facts matter to you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We simply don't have enough evidence to know what impact we are having and what is unrelated. We know climate change isn't new. There have been ice ages in the past. Weather records need to go back millions of years to extrapolate meaningful data. The information we have is akin to taking a teaspoon of water from the ocean and deciding there's no whales in the teaspoon therefore there are no whales in the ocean." You're very right. We are investing a lot of money into studies and getting the right facts behind us. The more we know the better equipped we are to take countermeasures. At the same time industrialists are very aware that whatever we are going to do it affects their bottom line so they are ploughing money into disinformation, a tactic that is proving so successful in politics. However I don't think it takes a lot of information to know that a lot of what we are doing is wrong. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I hope the oil lasts a bit longer. My V8 barely does 18 mpg. Must try to remember to turn off Sport+ mode . " Nah keep in sport mode. Can't have all the greenies overtaking you with their Teslas | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We simply don't have enough evidence to know what impact we are having and what is unrelated. We know climate change isn't new. There have been ice ages in the past. Weather records need to go back millions of years to extrapolate meaningful data. The information we have is akin to taking a teaspoon of water from the ocean and deciding there's no whales in the teaspoon therefore there are no whales in the ocean.couldnt agree more. "Nice to see you have someone else to agree with whom also has no understanding of the subject and believes all kinds of random rhubarb which goes against actual information and facts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We simply don't have enough evidence to know what impact we are having and what is unrelated. We know climate change isn't new. There have been ice ages in the past. Weather records need to go back millions of years to extrapolate meaningful data. The information we have is akin to taking a teaspoon of water from the ocean and deciding there's no whales in the teaspoon therefore there are no whales in the ocean." What you have said is not true. We know as much about climate change as we do about the airflow around an aircraft wing and through its engines. That seems to be good enough for most people to fly. This is not the same as periods of warming and cooling that we have had before. That is the entire point. We are accelerating it at a rate that has never happened before. Data is not being extrapolated. It is being correlated and verified through multiple different methods. Where did you get this theory from? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For anyone interested in the 300 000 houses (that became 500 000). The median UK household produces 17.1 tonnes of CO2. New build houses are 6 times more efficient. 17.1/6 * 300 000 = 0.855mt Studies showed that 228mt were emitted by Amazon forest fires this year in an article published 30 August 2019. 228mt / 242 days = 0.942mt So now that's cleared up. The actual point being made was people need houses to live in. We don't need to be burning down the Amazon rain forest.. We've been building nearly 300,000 houses for the last two years and labour say it's not enough and will build 200,000 houses of their own 200+300 is 500 egghead. And I already corrected you on Amazon fire emissions, they lose 20,000 km2 a year to deforestation but it's 5.5 million km2 in total do the percentages egghead The vast majority of the fire areas will regrow within weeks. So hardly any of those emissions will be left in the atmosphere, whereas all your new, extra, more housing has c02 built into it, plus c02 footprints for it's lifespan plus c02 footprints for it's inhabitants, further from services higher the footprint (new houses are further away by nature). Now your the one telling everybody we've got 10 years before we're all dead unless we stop emitting c02 but now your keen on emitting c02 and loads of it, why?, because it falls into your socialist utopia bias egghead. And that is why nobody with two brain cells to rub together listens to you or your death cult mutterings. " "What is your point? That there is a problem but it's not that big a problem? There is a really big problem but we are doing enough? There is no problem and we don't have to do anything? You are right about some detail and that's what's important?" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For anyone interested in the 300 000 houses (that became 500 000). The median UK household produces 17.1 tonnes of CO2. New build houses are 6 times more efficient. 17.1/6 * 300 000 = 0.855mt Studies showed that 228mt were emitted by Amazon forest fires this year in an article published 30 August 2019. 228mt / 242 days = 0.942mt So now that's cleared up. The actual point being made was people need houses to live in. We don't need to be burning down the Amazon rain forest.. We've been building nearly 300,000 houses for the last two years and labour say it's not enough and will build 200,000 houses of their own 200+300 is 500 egghead. And I already corrected you on Amazon fire emissions, they lose 20,000 km2 a year to deforestation but it's 5.5 million km2 in total do the percentages egghead The vast majority of the fire areas will regrow within weeks. So hardly any of those emissions will be left in the atmosphere, whereas all your new, extra, more housing has c02 built into it, plus c02 footprints for it's lifespan plus c02 footprints for it's inhabitants, further from services higher the footprint (new houses are further away by nature). Now your the one telling everybody we've got 10 years before we're all dead unless we stop emitting c02 but now your keen on emitting c02 and loads of it, why?, because it falls into your socialist utopia bias egghead. And that is why nobody with two brain cells to rub together listens to you or your death cult mutterings. "What is your point? That there is a problem but it's not that big a problem? There is a really big problem but we are doing enough? There is no problem and we don't have to do anything? You are right about some detail and that's what's important?"" . None really, I just like arguing with idiots. You two are my favourite | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For anyone interested in the 300 000 houses (that became 500 000). The median UK household produces 17.1 tonnes of CO2. New build houses are 6 times more efficient. 17.1/6 * 300 000 = 0.855mt Studies showed that 228mt were emitted by Amazon forest fires this year in an article published 30 August 2019. 228mt / 242 days = 0.942mt So now that's cleared up. The actual point being made was people need houses to live in. We don't need to be burning down the Amazon rain forest.. We've been building nearly 300,000 houses for the last two years and labour say it's not enough and will build 200,000 houses of their own 200+300 is 500 egghead. And I already corrected you on Amazon fire emissions, they lose 20,000 km2 a year to deforestation but it's 5.5 million km2 in total do the percentages egghead The vast majority of the fire areas will regrow within weeks. So hardly any of those emissions will be left in the atmosphere, whereas all your new, extra, more housing has c02 built into it, plus c02 footprints for it's lifespan plus c02 footprints for it's inhabitants, further from services higher the footprint (new houses are further away by nature). Now your the one telling everybody we've got 10 years before we're all dead unless we stop emitting c02 but now your keen on emitting c02 and loads of it, why?, because it falls into your socialist utopia bias egghead. And that is why nobody with two brain cells to rub together listens to you or your death cult mutterings. "What is your point? That there is a problem but it's not that big a problem? There is a really big problem but we are doing enough? There is no problem and we don't have to do anything? You are right about some detail and that's what's important?". None really, I just like arguing with idiots. You two are my favourite "Dunning & Kruger would have loved you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For anyone interested in the 300 000 houses (that became 500 000). The median UK household produces 17.1 tonnes of CO2. New build houses are 6 times more efficient. 17.1/6 * 300 000 = 0.855mt Studies showed that 228mt were emitted by Amazon forest fires this year in an article published 30 August 2019. 228mt / 242 days = 0.942mt So now that's cleared up. The actual point being made was people need houses to live in. We don't need to be burning down the Amazon rain forest.. We've been building nearly 300,000 houses for the last two years and labour say it's not enough and will build 200,000 houses of their own 200+300 is 500 egghead. And I already corrected you on Amazon fire emissions, they lose 20,000 km2 a year to deforestation but it's 5.5 million km2 in total do the percentages egghead The vast majority of the fire areas will regrow within weeks. So hardly any of those emissions will be left in the atmosphere, whereas all your new, extra, more housing has c02 built into it, plus c02 footprints for it's lifespan plus c02 footprints for it's inhabitants, further from services higher the footprint (new houses are further away by nature). Now your the one telling everybody we've got 10 years before we're all dead unless we stop emitting c02 but now your keen on emitting c02 and loads of it, why?, because it falls into your socialist utopia bias egghead. And that is why nobody with two brain cells to rub together listens to you or your death cult mutterings. Little boy you are trying to cyberbully someone who would wipe the floor with you if there weren't forum rules that you don't seem to think apply to you. The 300 000 is the figure YOU quoted that set off your little obsession to prove me wrong. "Anybody know how much c02 labours extra 300,000 houses a year project would commit to?" Please explain how regrowth occurs when the land is used for farming and mining? Please provide references for this regrowth to happen in weeks. Errrr and that was 12 - 25 years. Not that facts matter to you. " . Calm down Napoleon Bonaparte. 12-25 years you say, oh well I suggest how long your new house needs to recover the c02 building it over the c02 losses in the old one. It's in the region of 55 years last time I looked. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For anyone interested in the 300 000 houses (that became 500 000). The median UK household produces 17.1 tonnes of CO2. New build houses are 6 times more efficient. 17.1/6 * 300 000 = 0.855mt Studies showed that 228mt were emitted by Amazon forest fires this year in an article published 30 August 2019. 228mt / 242 days = 0.942mt So now that's cleared up. The actual point being made was people need houses to live in. We don't need to be burning down the Amazon rain forest.. We've been building nearly 300,000 houses for the last two years and labour say it's not enough and will build 200,000 houses of their own 200+300 is 500 egghead. And I already corrected you on Amazon fire emissions, they lose 20,000 km2 a year to deforestation but it's 5.5 million km2 in total do the percentages egghead The vast majority of the fire areas will regrow within weeks. So hardly any of those emissions will be left in the atmosphere, whereas all your new, extra, more housing has c02 built into it, plus c02 footprints for it's lifespan plus c02 footprints for it's inhabitants, further from services higher the footprint (new houses are further away by nature). Now your the one telling everybody we've got 10 years before we're all dead unless we stop emitting c02 but now your keen on emitting c02 and loads of it, why?, because it falls into your socialist utopia bias egghead. And that is why nobody with two brain cells to rub together listens to you or your death cult mutterings. "What is your point? That there is a problem but it's not that big a problem? There is a really big problem but we are doing enough? There is no problem and we don't have to do anything? You are right about some detail and that's what's important?". None really, I just like arguing with idiots. You two are my favourite "I haven't seen you arguing with any "idiot's" yet. You've posted a lot of self contrary nonsense. But haven't seen you formulate any arguments yet. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I hope the oil lasts a bit longer. My V8 barely does 18 mpg. Must try to remember to turn off Sport+ mode . Nah keep in sport mode. Can't have all the greenies overtaking you with their Teslas ". You mean Tesla who emits 250,000 tones of c02 at it's factory every year?. Hmmmm something tells me your 12-25 year time span ain't gonna work here either Napoleon | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For anyone interested in the 300 000 houses (that became 500 000). The median UK household produces 17.1 tonnes of CO2. New build houses are 6 times more efficient. 17.1/6 * 300 000 = 0.855mt Studies showed that 228mt were emitted by Amazon forest fires this year in an article published 30 August 2019. 228mt / 242 days = 0.942mt So now that's cleared up. The actual point being made was people need houses to live in. We don't need to be burning down the Amazon rain forest.. We've been building nearly 300,000 houses for the last two years and labour say it's not enough and will build 200,000 houses of their own 200+300 is 500 egghead. And I already corrected you on Amazon fire emissions, they lose 20,000 km2 a year to deforestation but it's 5.5 million km2 in total do the percentages egghead The vast majority of the fire areas will regrow within weeks. So hardly any of those emissions will be left in the atmosphere, whereas all your new, extra, more housing has c02 built into it, plus c02 footprints for it's lifespan plus c02 footprints for it's inhabitants, further from services higher the footprint (new houses are further away by nature). Now your the one telling everybody we've got 10 years before we're all dead unless we stop emitting c02 but now your keen on emitting c02 and loads of it, why?, because it falls into your socialist utopia bias egghead. And that is why nobody with two brain cells to rub together listens to you or your death cult mutterings. "What is your point? That there is a problem but it's not that big a problem? There is a really big problem but we are doing enough? There is no problem and we don't have to do anything? You are right about some detail and that's what's important?". None really, I just like arguing with idiots. You two are my favourite
I haven't seen you arguing with any "idiot's" yet.
You've posted a lot of self contrary nonsense. But haven't seen you formulate any arguments yet.". Hey here's the third. Larry curly and now mo | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If Napoleon Bonaparte and his band of merry halfwits are right and we have 12-25 years to completely stop c02 emissions before some sort of runaway doom occurs then labours policy of X our current emissions by ten fold for the next ten years to reduce it vastly thereafter is not gonna work, where do these eggheads think all the cement (third highest emitter globally) plus steel (top ten emitter) plus millions and millions of tones of extra fuel, power, materials gonna come from some magic emissions tree?. All there actually going to do it speed up there supposed outcome. " Sounds like you've confused yourself there. Everything alright, do you need a sit down? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If Napoleon Bonaparte and his band of merry halfwits are right and we have 12-25 years to completely stop c02 emissions before some sort of runaway doom occurs then labours policy of X our current emissions by ten fold for the next ten years to reduce it vastly thereafter is not gonna work, where do these eggheads think all the cement (third highest emitter globally) plus steel (top ten emitter) plus millions and millions of tones of extra fuel, power, materials gonna come from some magic emissions tree?. All there actually going to do it speed up there supposed outcome. Sounds like you've confused yourself there. Everything alright, do you need a sit down?" . Calm down ms Geeta and let your leader speak | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It was a simple enough question our emissions dropped 2.7% last year to 365 million tonnes. How does doubling them for ten years with labours spending spree help solve this climate crises emergency that's gonna kill us all in 12-25 years unless they hit zero by 2035." If we are all dead, then housing crisis and debt crisis = resolved | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes carbon emission is an issue, yes general oil / coal burning is an issue along with cow farts. But the biggest cause of climate change is the measals vaccine (and other health controls). Population control is the actual solution to living with and mitigating climate change, but no politician is brave enough to put that forward. The planet will be absolutely fine when the glaciers melt, most plants will thrive on the high CO2 levels and extra warmth and water, this will produce an oxygen rich environment for any animals that survive to thrive. So climate change is good for the planet, but bad for humans. " Depending on who you talk to there are 9 or 11 tipping points. Once any one of those tipping points is exceeded it fuels its own climate changing effects in a runway exponential manner. This will set off the other tipping points in domino fashion. If the Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica melts it will cause a sea level increase of 65cm. It retains other glaciers which would raise sea levels another 2.4m. Once air becomes too hot and humid it cannot be breathed. This means that the hot areas will become uninhabitable. People will migrate to the cooler areas which will already have reduced in size due to rising sea levels. Add to this that despite having less land to live on and less oxygen in the air to breathe the population will have increase 1.4 billion give or take. The scientists are saying we won't drown. We'll suffocate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It was a simple enough question our emissions dropped 2.7% last year to 365 million tonnes. How does doubling them for ten years with labours spending spree help solve this climate crises emergency that's gonna kill us all in 12-25 years unless they hit zero by 2035. If we are all dead, then housing crisis and debt crisis = resolved "Which makes you wonder why our politicians are squabbling over the relatively unimportant things? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It’s not rocket science really! We are and have been taking more than we give back to the earth so eventually we outgrow the resources available and then we die off! It’s only mans ingenuity that will keep it going for a while but unless man starts giving back in a big way the outcome is inevitable. They have this climate change thing going on and everyone makes the right noises but non of them are willing to stop making massive profits from r*ping the planet of every thing they can get their greedy hands on. " Exactly that. Trump has put the American economy before the world's environment. In my view that's very short term thinking. What about a future America? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It was a simple enough question our emissions dropped 2.7% last year to 365 million tonnes. How does doubling them for ten years with labours spending spree help solve this climate crises emergency that's gonna kill us all in 12-25 years unless they hit zero by 2035." Why you expect people on a swingers forum to answer your irrelivent and nonsensical questions, is beyond me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It was a simple enough question our emissions dropped 2.7% last year to 365 million tonnes. How does doubling them for ten years with labours spending spree help solve this climate crises emergency that's gonna kill us all in 12-25 years unless they hit zero by 2035. If we are all dead, then housing crisis and debt crisis = resolved ". Trust me we'll all be still here, still doing the same old same old. I'm only parodying the three wise men of Doom on this thread | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It was a simple enough question our emissions dropped 2.7% last year to 365 million tonnes. How does doubling them for ten years with labours spending spree help solve this climate crises emergency that's gonna kill us all in 12-25 years unless they hit zero by 2035. Why you expect people on a swingers forum to answer your irrelivent and nonsensical questions, is beyond me. " . Jesus you make Geeta seem chatty! .
Is it coz you don't like the answer or can't answer it, because normally your full of answers for everything!. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It was a simple enough question our emissions dropped 2.7% last year to 365 million tonnes. How does doubling them for ten years with labours spending spree help solve this climate crises emergency that's gonna kill us all in 12-25 years unless they hit zero by 2035. Why you expect people on a swingers forum to answer your irrelivent and nonsensical questions, is beyond me. " I did a little bet with myself. No personal meets. Less than 3 cam meets. Verifications hidden. I was close. Spot the socially inept mouth breather... they walk amongst us... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It was a simple enough question our emissions dropped 2.7% last year to 365 million tonnes. How does doubling them for ten years with labours spending spree help solve this climate crises emergency that's gonna kill us all in 12-25 years unless they hit zero by 2035. Why you expect people on a swingers forum to answer your irrelivent and nonsensical questions, is beyond me. I did a little bet with myself. No personal meets. Less than 3 cam meets. Verifications hidden. I was close. Spot the socially inept mouth breather... they walk amongst us..." . Soz little fella I must have proper upset you for this tirade?. I might even vote Corbyn just so you don't start thumb sucking again | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It was a simple enough question our emissions dropped 2.7% last year to 365 million tonnes. How does doubling them for ten years with labours spending spree help solve this climate crises emergency that's gonna kill us all in 12-25 years unless they hit zero by 2035. Why you expect people on a swingers forum to answer your irrelivent and nonsensical questions, is beyond me. I did a little bet with myself. No personal meets. Less than 3 cam meets. Verifications hidden. I was close. Spot the socially inept mouth breather... they walk amongst us.... Soz little fella I must have proper upset you for this tirade?. I might even vote Corbyn just so you don't start thumb sucking again "Tirade? OK. No by all means carry on. I take you as seriously as anyone else here, which is to say not at all. You and anything you post here are about as insignificant as any other troll on these forums. Nobody is answering your questions because nobody likes you, nobody thinks you're intelligent except you, your infantile behaviour was amusing at first but now its just old. Try having just a tiny bit of self respect. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This subject always seems to turn into a slanging match, which really is very sad. It's probably the most important issue of our time yet no-one seems to want to debate it sensibly. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that human activity is accelerating climate change. By how much? I don't know and I really don't think anyone, not even climate scientists, can come up with an exact number. Where I tend to fall out with some of the zealots is on the subject of what can we do? Mankind can do something about it but only as a united front. This notion that a small island in the north Atlantic can alter anything on its own (while impoverishing itself in the process) is just nonsense. For example: Britain closes one coal fired power station (Didcot) that had a generating capacity of 1.44 gigawatts. Meanwhile China has 259 gigawatts under development (179 Didcots) which is on top of the 993 gigawatts (689 Didcots) it already has. The UK’s total generating capacity in all forms is 85 gigawatts, less than 7% of China's total. If Britain gave up using electricity entirely, it would make no difference to the impact of Chinese coal burning. On top of that India has now hit 200 gigawatts (139 Didcots) and still growing. A little side anecdote is that earlier this year we were on a cruise ship that called in at Bangalore (or New Mangalore as they like to call it these days) We were still a few miles offshore when I got a smell in my nose that I hadn't experienced since my childhood. That strong smell of burned sulphur that used to hang over British towns and cities when everyone had a coal fire. As we docked the source became obvious. A large coal depot on the dockside that was smouldering away at various points with a cloud of acrid black smoke being pushed out to sea. Then there is Brazil and Indonesia. Burning thousands of square miles of rain forest which not only pumps tons of CO2 into the atmosphere it also destroys the planets natural filters as well. Mankind as a whole needs to find an answer and has to work together. But one small country building a few windmills, slapping green taxes on everything, and banning diesels from city centres may salve a few consciences but it won't make a jot of difference to the overall picture. In fact it could actually be counter productive. If for example green taxes were to drive manufacturing to say China. Then they would need to build more coal fired power stations to satisfy the demand. It's a worldwide problem that needs a worldwide answer, but I don't see it coming any time soon. Maybe better to prepare for it rather than futile, Canute like, attempts to stop it. Nobody knows "exactly". That is a foolish yardstick to use. Base it on a risk analysis. Almost any investment made now will cost vast amounts less than dealing with the consequences of even a proportion of the expected risk being realised. The entire automotive and road transport industry is shifting to battery and hydrogen fuel cells. Billions of investment. The aerospace industry is doing the same with an early switch to biofuels as a start. We are not doing anything "on our own". That's what the Paris Climate Accord was about. Unfortunately the USA has decided to stick its fingers in its ears and go "lalala" so that they can make money in the short term for their chums giving other countries the pretext to do the same. However, you can even put that aside now. The economics of renewable energy make the technology move pretty much inevitable. This is with no subsidy. The oil and coal industries are heavily subsidised despite the huge profits being made for decades. So the argument for having a lead in developing the technology as a country is compelling. So no, I don't think that the argument to do nothing and prepare for disaster is the right one. We cannot afford the disaster. The right technology could prevent it and we could make money doing it. Then tell that to the Chinese. They have no interest whatsoever in going green and won't have for the foreseeable future. If ever. It seems that many are more than happy to trash the western economy's and if, it won't, but if it would make any difference at all then you could make an argument for it. The only difference turning the lights out will make is that you won't see your feet getting wet. Are you basing what you are writing on data, opinion or "common sense"? I suggest that you look up the per capita CO2 outputs per country. Then I suggest you look up which is the biggest investor in renewable technologies moving and which is the biggest generator. There are a lot of people in China so in absolute terms CO2 emissions are high, but they are a doing rather more than many. You could just ignore my suggestion and continue to write having chosen not to learn, or you could share what you discover. I'll wait." So you either didn't wish to pollute your theory with actual data or you couldn't find a way to explain the contradiction. Possibly you are trying to find a link to anywhere that confirms your opinion
So the actual top ten ranking of CO2 per head from high to low (World Bank 2019) is:
USA
Australia
Canada
Netherlands
Japan
Germany
China
UK
Spain
France
Where is China on that list? How well are we doing?
According to the UN,global investment in renewables is 32% from China alone, 21% from Europe as a whole and 17% USA.
Where does that put your theory? | |||
(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 |
"It was a simple enough question our emissions dropped 2.7% last year to 365 million tonnes. How does doubling them for ten years with labours spending spree help solve this climate crises emergency that's gonna kill us all in 12-25 years unless they hit zero by 2035. Why you expect people on a swingers forum to answer your irrelivent and nonsensical questions, is beyond me. I did a little bet with myself. No personal meets. Less than 3 cam meets. Verifications hidden. I was close. Spot the socially inept mouth breather... they walk amongst us.... Soz little fella I must have proper upset you for this tirade?. I might even vote Corbyn just so you don't start thumb sucking again
Tirade? OK.
No by all means carry on. I take you as seriously as anyone else here, which is to say not at all. You and anything you post here are about as insignificant as any other troll on these forums. Nobody is answering your questions because nobody likes you, nobody thinks you're intelligent except you, your infantile behaviour was amusing at first but now its just old.
Try having just a tiny bit of self respect. ". Nobody likes me!!! Oh you bully. You continue to reply to me egghead so I'm presuming you love me and that's why you've got your bully complex  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Our only salvation is a nuclear war to wipe out a few billion humans" That is one option, Or you want instant destructive results, why not trigger some of the big volcanoes ash in the upper atmosphere will reduce sunlight, reducing temperature, planes will be grounded, and potentially billions killed. Or, why not remove all support including education, medical, everything globally from any person who has a second child. Will halve the population in one generation. Ration fuel, so without taxation or profiteering we reduce use of fossil fuel, and change expectation on how people and goods move around the world. I am really looking for plausible solutions rather than indiscriminate culling. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The population goes into terminal decline from 2070. Look at the data, it's halved by 2100. Don't listen to these death cultists, were getting off c02 quite quickly already, the turn around had begun and we'll be fine. There just pissed because they wanted to use it as an excuse for world wide redistribution of wealth because there Marxist fuckwits. That's why all of a sudden it's turned into a climate emergency crises, they wanna speed up the process so they can keep on with the redistribution bullshit "Terminal decline in 50 years? What makes you think that? Is that a new path to extinction? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The population goes into terminal decline from 2070. Look at the data, it's halved by 2100. Don't listen to these death cultists, were getting off c02 quite quickly already, the turn around had begun and we'll be fine. There just pissed because they wanted to use it as an excuse for world wide redistribution of wealth because there Marxist fuckwits. That's why all of a sudden it's turned into a climate emergency crises, they wanna speed up the process so they can keep on with the redistribution bullshit
Terminal decline in 50 years? What makes you think that? Is that a new path to extinction? ". No it's just demographics and lifestyle change combined with a falling fertility rate. The same Wally's who's pushing climate disaster now are the same ones who pushed the exponential human population myth. They have other agendas | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The population goes into terminal decline from 2070. Look at the data, it's halved by 2100. Don't listen to these death cultists, were getting off c02 quite quickly already, the turn around had begun and we'll be fine. There just pissed because they wanted to use it as an excuse for world wide redistribution of wealth because there Marxist fuckwits. That's why all of a sudden it's turned into a climate emergency crises, they wanna speed up the process so they can keep on with the redistribution bullshit
Terminal decline in 50 years? What makes you think that? Is that a new path to extinction? .
No it's just demographics and lifestyle change combined with a falling fertility rate.
The same Wally's who's pushing climate disaster now are the same ones who pushed the exponential human population myth.
They have other agendas
"So no answer on man made climate change, but it's almost fixed anyway so nothing more has to be done. There is, however a conspiracy by "Marxists" in a "death cult" to redistribute wealth in some unspecified way related to climate change. Is that the summary? I'm convinced | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The population goes into terminal decline from 2070. Look at the data, it's halved by 2100. Don't listen to these death cultists, were getting off c02 quite quickly already, the turn around had begun and we'll be fine. There just pissed because they wanted to use it as an excuse for world wide redistribution of wealth because there Marxist fuckwits. That's why all of a sudden it's turned into a climate emergency crises, they wanna speed up the process so they can keep on with the redistribution bullshit
Terminal decline in 50 years? What makes you think that? Is that a new path to extinction? .
No it's just demographics and lifestyle change combined with a falling fertility rate.
The same Wally's who's pushing climate disaster now are the same ones who pushed the exponential human population myth.
They have other agendas
So no answer on man made climate change, but it's almost fixed anyway so nothing more has to be done.
There is, however a conspiracy by "Marxists" in a "death cult" to redistribute wealth in some unspecified way related to climate change.
Is that the summary?
I'm convinced ". No I've always advocated following IPCC guidance on c02 emissions which is what the Tory party are doing (and quicker) than guidance. It's Brazil China India and Saudi Arabia dragging there feet in Portugal. Thats the summary | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The population goes into terminal decline from 2070. Look at the data, it's halved by 2100. Don't listen to these death cultists, were getting off c02 quite quickly already, the turn around had begun and we'll be fine. There just pissed because they wanted to use it as an excuse for world wide redistribution of wealth because there Marxist fuckwits. That's why all of a sudden it's turned into a climate emergency crises, they wanna speed up the process so they can keep on with the redistribution bullshit
Terminal decline in 50 years? What makes you think that? Is that a new path to extinction? .
No it's just demographics and lifestyle change combined with a falling fertility rate.
The same Wally's who's pushing climate disaster now are the same ones who pushed the exponential human population myth.
They have other agendas
So no answer on man made climate change, but it's almost fixed anyway so nothing more has to be done.
There is, however a conspiracy by "Marxists" in a "death cult" to redistribute wealth in some unspecified way related to climate change.
Is that the summary?
I'm convinced .
No I've always advocated following IPCC guidance on c02 emissions which is what the Tory party are doing (and quicker) than guidance.
It's Brazil China India and Saudi Arabia dragging there feet in Portugal.
Thats the summary
"So there is man made climate change then? The actual ranking of CO2 per head from high to low (World Bank 2019) is: USA Australia Canada Netherlands Japan Germany China UK Spain France Sweden Brazil India Where is China on that list? What about Brazil and India? How well are we doing? According to the UN,global investment in renewables is 32% from China alone, 21% from Europe as a whole and 17% USA." No "Marxists" in a "death cult" trying to redistribute wealth in some unspecified way related to climate change then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This thread should be about - why do some people believe the propaganda created by the fossil fuel industry over the actual science. Is it a lack of understanding, or is it that the problem it too big, and it's easier not to think about it. There certainly seems to be some people on here who love a conspiracy theory. Maybe that's part of it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial People can choose not to believe in what's happening. But their belief has no impact on the real world. We are as sure about the science of greenhouse gases kicking off the acceleration in mean global temperature as we are sure the earth isn't flat. Not everyone agrees that the earth isn't flat. Indeed by some definitions of "flat" one could argue that the world is both "flat" and "spherical" at the same time. But that's not really relevant. The reason why a lot of people refuse to believe in climate change is because the current solutions to the problem seem to them to be worse than the actual problem and it's easier to simply dismiss it as false or unsure science. This believe is further strengthened by the fact that, whilst the science and the facts on the ground are becoming more convincing, there are still anomalies in the science such as the lack of increase in pan evaporation rates and the upper atmosphere not warming as fast as it should be if the science was completely correct to name two. It also doesn't help that anyone who questions climate change are called "climate deniars" as if it was a religious heresy to not believe. It's either science or a believe, it can't be both. You've used the word "believe" a lot. Belief isn't required when you have understanding. " I was answering the question posed, which was "why do some people believe the propaganda created by the fossil fuel industry over the actual science?". It's pretty difficult to answer a question about why people believe something without using the word belief. But ultimately everything comes down to belief and it's simply a question of whether, when looking at the evidence, a belief is reasonable or not. Whilst I believe that the evidence now suggest believing that climate change is happening and that that change is likely due to human influence I'm still not convinced yet that a contra point of view is not valid nor that the science and the conclusion drawn from it should not be further challenged and scrutinised. The science is not a matter of belief but the conclusion, and with it our understanding, is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It was a simple enough question our emissions dropped 2.7% last year to 365 million tonnes. How does doubling them for ten years with labours spending spree help solve this climate crises emergency that's gonna kill us all in 12-25 years unless they hit zero by 2035. Why you expect people on a swingers forum to answer your irrelivent and nonsensical questions, is beyond me. I did a little bet with myself. No personal meets. Less than 3 cam meets. Verifications hidden. I was close. Spot the socially inept mouth breather... they walk amongst us.... Soz little fella I must have proper upset you for this tirade?. I might even vote Corbyn just so you don't start thumb sucking again
Tirade? OK.
No by all means carry on. I take you as seriously as anyone else here, which is to say not at all. You and anything you post here are about as insignificant as any other troll on these forums. Nobody is answering your questions because nobody likes you, nobody thinks you're intelligent except you, your infantile behaviour was amusing at first but now its just old.
Try having just a tiny bit of self respect. .
Nobody likes me!!! Oh you bully.
You continue to reply to me egghead so I'm presuming you love me and that's why you've got your bully complex "Keep on flattering yourself. Actually I feel sorry for you. You're obviously a pathetic creature. But your theory of money grabbing marxists is very amusing. It's like you find words you like and string them together because you think it makes you sound impressive. A bit like a little girl who dresses in her mother's clothes and thinks she's an adult. Tragic but hilarious at the same time. Please don't stop. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The population goes into terminal decline from 2070. Look at the data, it's halved by 2100. Don't listen to these death cultists, were getting off c02 quite quickly already, the turn around had begun and we'll be fine. There just pissed because they wanted to use it as an excuse for world wide redistribution of wealth because there Marxist fuckwits. That's why all of a sudden it's turned into a climate emergency crises, they wanna speed up the process so they can keep on with the redistribution bullshit
Terminal decline in 50 years? What makes you think that? Is that a new path to extinction? "This is a theory that is used to argue mine whilst agreeing with mine in part. Einstein here predicts we will be at 4 billion in 2100. Well we are at 7.7 billion now so in 50 years time at 0.7 billion perdecade (being kind because it's exponential not linear) that's and extra 3.5 billion. This 11.2 billion will be halved to 4 billion (his maths not mine). Which means that 7.2 billion will die in 30 years for this to be true. However this paints a scenario where an impossible number of people live on limited habitatable land mass with reduced oxygen in the atmosphere. IPCC wants us to limit our global warming to under 1.5 by 2050 but is that realistic with an extra 2 billion people on the planet. Current estimates are that we will hit 1.5 in 8 years. With the amount of climate damage we are seeing at 0.9 degrees imagine 1.5? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"facts trump opinion. 99,% climate scientists state evidence of man made greenhouse gases impacting climate." I'm getting that 97% support anthropogenic. I would have thought the industrialists would have bought more scientists. But then it seems 3% is enough to win some people over. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"man made increase in co2 burning fossil fuel. and ch4 beef production. " Then we have permafrost thawing to a depth in 2019 where the IPCC expected it to be in 2090. Oooops. Only 70 years out. Have they factored that in to the climate change model? Have they factored in the fires in Grab Canaria, Australia etc? There is also the feeling that the Amazon fires are an exceptional year. Well there are two factors influencing that. Brazil’s far-right leader Jair Bolsonaro is clearly bought and paid for, and the jungle is dryer due to climate change. This is not going to change any time soon. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The population goes into terminal decline from 2070. Look at the data, it's halved by 2100. Don't listen to these death cultists, were getting off c02 quite quickly already, the turn around had begun and we'll be fine. There just pissed because they wanted to use it as an excuse for world wide redistribution of wealth because there Marxist fuckwits. That's why all of a sudden it's turned into a climate emergency crises, they wanna speed up the process so they can keep on with the redistribution bullshit
Terminal decline in 50 years? What makes you think that? Is that a new path to extinction? .
No it's just demographics and lifestyle change combined with a falling fertility rate.
The same Wally's who's pushing climate disaster now are the same ones who pushed the exponential human population myth.
They have other agendas
So no answer on man made climate change, but it's almost fixed anyway so nothing more has to be done.
There is, however a conspiracy by "Marxists" in a "death cult" to redistribute wealth in some unspecified way related to climate change.
Is that the summary?
I'm convinced .
No I've always advocated following IPCC guidance on c02 emissions which is what the Tory party are doing (and quicker) than guidance.
It's Brazil China India and Saudi Arabia dragging there feet in Portugal.
Thats the summary
So there is man made climate change then?
The actual ranking of CO2 per head from high to low (World Bank 2019) is:
USA
Australia
Canada
Netherlands
Japan
Germany
China
UK
Spain
France
Sweden
Brazil
India
Where is China on that list? What about Brazil and India? How well are we doing?
According to the UN,global investment in renewables is 32% from China alone, 21% from Europe as a whole and 17% USA."
No "Marxists" in a "death cult" trying to redistribute wealth in some unspecified way related to climate change then?". China per head? Omg what a data set .
The country of China is the biggest emitter of c02 by a long way, China as a country has to tackle that problem, whether they tackle it with 1 citizen or 1 billion is irrelevant, there emissions are going up not down.
The USA is the second biggest emitter, there emissions are going down, India is the next biggest emitter there's are going up the EU is the next biggest emitter, there's are going up, Russia is the next biggest emitter, there's are going up.
These countries regardless of how many people live in them need to bring down there emissions fast or we're going to be wasting our time. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The population goes into terminal decline from 2070. Look at the data, it's halved by 2100. Don't listen to these death cultists, were getting off c02 quite quickly already, the turn around had begun and we'll be fine. There just pissed because they wanted to use it as an excuse for world wide redistribution of wealth because there Marxist fuckwits. That's why all of a sudden it's turned into a climate emergency crises, they wanna speed up the process so they can keep on with the redistribution bullshit
Terminal decline in 50 years? What makes you think that? Is that a new path to extinction?
This is a theory that is used to argue mine whilst agreeing with mine in part.
Einstein here predicts we will be at 4 billion in 2100.
Well we are at 7.7 billion now so in 50 years time at 0.7 billion perdecade (being kind because it's exponential not linear) that's and extra 3.5 billion. This 11.2 billion will be halved to 4 billion (his maths not mine). Which means that 7.2 billion will die in 30 years for this to be true.
However this paints a scenario where an impossible number of people live on limited habitatable land mass with reduced oxygen in the atmosphere.
IPCC wants us to limit our global warming to under 1.5 by 2050 but is that realistic with an extra 2 billion people on the planet. Current estimates are that we will hit 1.5 in 8 years. With the amount of climate damage we are seeing at 0.9 degrees imagine 1.5?"https://www-irishtimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/science/earth-s-population-may-start-to-fall-from-2040-does-it-matter- | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"facts trump opinion. 99,% climate scientists state evidence of man made greenhouse gases impacting climate. I'm getting that 97% support anthropogenic. I would have thought the industrialists would have bought more scientists. But then it seems 3% is enough to win some people over. " If 9 out of 10 Doctors diagnosed cancer in you .Who the fuck would choose the guy that gave you the all clear...
What’s the worst that can happen .??
We get clean air and reduce deaths from pollution for no good reason..Thats still a win
Climate change isn’t even a debate anymore amongst western nations .The green political ball is in play and gets votes and that’s all politicians care about.
They’ll make the necessary changes and policies.
Im quite positive about our future ..
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"facts trump opinion. 99,% climate scientists state evidence of man made greenhouse gases impacting climate. I'm getting that 97% support anthropogenic. I would have thought the industrialists would have bought more scientists. But then it seems 3% is enough to win some people over. If 9 out of 10 Doctors diagnosed cancer in you .Who the fuck would choose the guy that gave you the all clear...
What’s the worst that can happen .??
We get clean air and reduce deaths from pollution for no good reason..Thats still a win
Climate change isn’t even a debate anymore amongst western nations .The green political ball is in play and gets votes and that’s all politicians care about.
They’ll make the necessary changes and policies.
Im quite positive about our future ..
"The greens have gone a bit overboard on it in the uk though zero carbon by 2030. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"facts trump opinion. 99,% climate scientists state evidence of man made greenhouse gases impacting climate. I'm getting that 97% support anthropogenic. I would have thought the industrialists would have bought more scientists. But then it seems 3% is enough to win some people over. If 9 out of 10 Doctors diagnosed cancer in you .Who the fuck would choose the guy that gave you the all clear...
What’s the worst that can happen .??
We get clean air and reduce deaths from pollution for no good reason..Thats still a win
Climate change isn’t even a debate anymore amongst western nations .The green political ball is in play and gets votes and that’s all politicians care about.
They’ll make the necessary changes and policies.
Im quite positive about our future ..
The greens have gone a bit overboard on it in the uk though zero carbon by 2030."The greens just place down a marker to force change .The change comes from whoever gets into power.Youll notice conservatives and labour are falling over themselves to be greener than each other... The deniers are now a small insignificant minority these days... All positive stuff.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"facts trump opinion. 99,% climate scientists state evidence of man made greenhouse gases impacting climate. I'm getting that 97% support anthropogenic. I would have thought the industrialists would have bought more scientists. But then it seems 3% is enough to win some people over. If 9 out of 10 Doctors diagnosed cancer in you .Who the fuck would choose the guy that gave you the all clear...
What’s the worst that can happen .??
We get clean air and reduce deaths from pollution for no good reason..Thats still a win
Climate change isn’t even a debate anymore amongst western nations .The green political ball is in play and gets votes and that’s all politicians care about.
They’ll make the necessary changes and policies.
Im quite positive about our future ..
The greens have gone a bit overboard on it in the uk though zero carbon by 2030.
The greens just place down a marker to force change .The change comes from whoever gets into power.Youll notice conservatives and labour are falling over themselves to be greener than each other...
The deniers are now a small insignificant minority these days...
All positive stuff.. "Well the tories had set a target of 2050 but yeah i see labour like every other policy trying to beat it so get your point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"facts trump opinion. 99,% climate scientists state evidence of man made greenhouse gases impacting climate. I'm getting that 97% support anthropogenic. I would have thought the industrialists would have bought more scientists. But then it seems 3% is enough to win some people over. If 9 out of 10 Doctors diagnosed cancer in you .Who the fuck would choose the guy that gave you the all clear...
What’s the worst that can happen .??
We get clean air and reduce deaths from pollution for no good reason..Thats still a win
Climate change isn’t even a debate anymore amongst western nations .The green political ball is in play and gets votes and that’s all politicians care about.
They’ll make the necessary changes and policies.
Im quite positive about our future ..
The greens have gone a bit overboard on it in the uk though zero carbon by 2030.
The greens just place down a marker to force change .The change comes from whoever gets into power.Youll notice conservatives and labour are falling over themselves to be greener than each other...
The deniers are now a small insignificant minority these days...
All positive stuff.. Well the tories had set a target of 2050 but yeah i see labour like every other policy trying to beat it so get your point."You are the man who doesn't want to pay tax so that you can give money to your grand children but don't care what the state of the planet that they inherit is. Do you think man made climate change is a serious risk to the eco-system. Yes or no? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The population goes into terminal decline from 2070. Look at the data, it's halved by 2100. Don't listen to these death cultists, were getting off c02 quite quickly already, the turn around had begun and we'll be fine. There just pissed because they wanted to use it as an excuse for world wide redistribution of wealth because there Marxist fuckwits. That's why all of a sudden it's turned into a climate emergency crises, they wanna speed up the process so they can keep on with the redistribution bullshit
Terminal decline in 50 years? What makes you think that? Is that a new path to extinction? .
No it's just demographics and lifestyle change combined with a falling fertility rate.
The same Wally's who's pushing climate disaster now are the same ones who pushed the exponential human population myth.
They have other agendas
So no answer on man made climate change, but it's almost fixed anyway so nothing more has to be done.
There is, however a conspiracy by "Marxists" in a "death cult" to redistribute wealth in some unspecified way related to climate change.
Is that the summary?
I'm convinced .
No I've always advocated following IPCC guidance on c02 emissions which is what the Tory party are doing (and quicker) than guidance.
It's Brazil China India and Saudi Arabia dragging there feet in Portugal.
Thats the summary
So there is man made climate change then?
The actual ranking of CO2 per head from high to low (World Bank 2019) is:
USA
Australia
Canada
Netherlands
Japan
Germany
China
UK
Spain
France
Sweden
Brazil
India
Where is China on that list? What about Brazil and India? How well are we doing?
According to the UN,global investment in renewables is 32% from China alone, 21% from Europe as a whole and 17% USA."
No "Marxists" in a "death cult" trying to redistribute wealth in some unspecified way related to climate change then?.
China per head? Omg what a data set .
The country of China is the biggest emitter of c02 by a long way, China as a country has to tackle that problem, whether they tackle it with 1 citizen or 1 billion is irrelevant, there emissions are going up not down.
The USA is the second biggest emitter, there emissions are going down, India is the next biggest emitter there's are going up the EU is the next biggest emitter, there's are going up, Russia is the next biggest emitter, there's are going up.
These countries regardless of how many people live in them need to bring down there emissions fast or we're going to be wasting our time. "You don't seem to understand what you actually wrote. "It's Brazil China India and Saudi Arabia dragging there feet" As I stated in an earlier post, lots of people mean a high absolute output, especially when you are trying to raise the living standards of your population with "luxuries" like medicine, adequate food and electric lighting. What would you like India to reduce it's CO2 output per person to and how? Would you like China to spend more than 32% of global renewable investment? Would they be dragging their feet little enough for you then? What do you want them to do? I still want to hear more about the "Marxist", "death cult" connection to reducing man made climate change. Do share. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes, the world ranking of co2 per head is simply a crap way of auditing to collect data. A countries over all emissions is what's needed to gauge who needs to do what. " See my response to the simple troll. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
The same guy who wrote this report previously predicted a global over population catastrophe.... must be one of those death cultists Got himself published for one view and now published for calling bullshit on his own idea
According to UN population Fund 2018 the current TFR is 2.5.
Today 43 countries with populations of at least 1 million have 4 or more births per woman. 30 are falling but still between 2.5 and 3.9.
You need 2.1 for a flat population growth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"facts trump opinion. 99,% climate scientists state evidence of man made greenhouse gases impacting climate. I'm getting that 97% support anthropogenic. I would have thought the industrialists would have bought more scientists. But then it seems 3% is enough to win some people over. If 9 out of 10 Doctors diagnosed cancer in you .Who the fuck would choose the guy that gave you the all clear...
What’s the worst that can happen .??
We get clean air and reduce deaths from pollution for no good reason..Thats still a win
Climate change isn’t even a debate anymore amongst western nations .The green political ball is in play and gets votes and that’s all politicians care about.
They’ll make the necessary changes and policies.
Im quite positive about our future ..
The greens have gone a bit overboard on it in the uk though zero carbon by 2030.
The greens just place down a marker to force change .The change comes from whoever gets into power.Youll notice conservatives and labour are falling over themselves to be greener than each other...
The deniers are now a small insignificant minority these days...
All positive stuff.. "https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/27/climate-emergency-world-may-have-crossed-tipping-points Let's go over tipping points again. Basically after we have gone through a tipping point NOTHING we can do will stop it from feeding itself. Some people conservatively give us 12 years. Some give us 8. Some say it's already happened. To have a zero carbon emissions target for 2050 is like having a parachute that opens on impact. It will be too little too late. Greta Thunberg is not worried about inaction. She is worried that politicians will pay lip service to climate change control and not do what they promise. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can't deny that we aren't having an effect on the planet however how do we know that a large portion isn't just the natural cycle of the planet?? Put it another way. During the time of the dinosaurs these massive animals ruled churning out vast amounts of carbon gas, at the same time the planet was in a state of flux from volcanic activity likewise churning out huge amount of gases so it's not like earth can't handle this. Bear in mind that dinosaurs where around for something like 147 million years before they went pop. So yes I think that we have to do something about the artificial poisoning of the planet, plastics and chemicals and ironically our reliance on fossil fuels. I do think that it's part of the natural order of things and nature's way of ridding itself of an annoying parasite. HUMANS" One of the favourite arguments of the climate change deniers is that we've gone through changes like this before. It's the reason why we are where we are. For instance yes we went through planet warming when we came out of the mini ice age. That's because the planet was cold and warmed up to normal levels. Right now it's changing 50 times faster than what it would normally change. Also it's supposed to be getting colder not warmer. Dinosaurs pooping and breathing were nothing compared to what we are emitting now. From my understanding they probably went extinct from a meteorite strike not global warming. I may be wrong. What I am concerned about is us patting ourselves on the back for dropping our CO2 emissions slightly whilst elsewhere and in other sectors those improvements are wiped out in a couple of days. A bit like bailing water out of the titanic with a bucket as it's going down and telling people not to get in the lifeboats. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those that tried to follow the link. Here it is properly done. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/earth-s-population-may-start-to-fall-from-2040-does-it-matter-1.3808527 As you probably know IPCC is a UN initiative and their reports are supposedly unquestionable... while it suits.... then two guys think UN figures MAY be wrong, well that's concrete evidence. To say we will only reach 8 billion by 2040 when we are at 7.7 billion and on a trend of 0.7 billion per year... we will soon see
The same guy who wrote this report previously predicted a global over population catastrophe.... must be one of those death cultists Got himself published for one view and now published for calling bullshit on his own idea
According to UN population Fund 2018 the current TFR is 2.5.
Today 43 countries with populations of at least 1 million have 4 or more births per woman. 30 are falling but still between 2.5 and 3.9.
You need 2.1 for a flat population growth.". China is below 2.1 and India is at 2.1 and dropping that's 28% of the population, every Western nation has been below 2.1 for decades, Japan below for decades, Russia below for decades, Brazil a firm Catholic poor country-1.73, Spain 1.3, Italy 1.5 Ireland 1.7 even religion isn't saving us 90% of the planets population is at 2.1 or below or way below. Were only going one way egghead | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those that tried to follow the link. Here it is properly done. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/earth-s-population-may-start-to-fall-from-2040-does-it-matter-1.3808527 As you probably know IPCC is a UN initiative and their reports are supposedly unquestionable... while it suits.... then two guys think UN figures MAY be wrong, well that's concrete evidence. To say we will only reach 8 billion by 2040 when we are at 7.7 billion and on a trend of 0.7 billion per year... we will soon see
The same guy who wrote this report previously predicted a global over population catastrophe.... must be one of those death cultists Got himself published for one view and now published for calling bullshit on his own idea
According to UN population Fund 2018 the current TFR is 2.5.
Today 43 countries with populations of at least 1 million have 4 or more births per woman. 30 are falling but still between 2.5 and 3.9.
You need 2.1 for a flat population growth..
China is below 2.1 and India is at 2.1 and dropping that's 28% of the population, every Western nation has been below 2.1 for decades, Japan below for decades, Russia below for decades, Brazil a firm Catholic poor country-1.73, Spain 1.3, Italy 1.5 Ireland 1.7 even religion isn't saving us 90% of the planets population is at 2.1 or below or way below.
Were only going one way egghead "It took me a while but I worked out why climate change doesn't bother you... https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17626-cockroaches-future-proofed-against-climate-change/ oloo | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For those that tried to follow the link. Here it is properly done. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/earth-s-population-may-start-to-fall-from-2040-does-it-matter-1.3808527 As you probably know IPCC is a UN initiative and their reports are supposedly unquestionable... while it suits.... then two guys think UN figures MAY be wrong, well that's concrete evidence. To say we will only reach 8 billion by 2040 when we are at 7.7 billion and on a trend of 0.7 billion per year... we will soon see
The same guy who wrote this report previously predicted a global over population catastrophe.... must be one of those death cultists Got himself published for one view and now published for calling bullshit on his own idea
According to UN population Fund 2018 the current TFR is 2.5.
Today 43 countries with populations of at least 1 million have 4 or more births per woman. 30 are falling but still between 2.5 and 3.9.
You need 2.1 for a flat population growth..
China is below 2.1 and India is at 2.1 and dropping that's 28% of the population, every Western nation has been below 2.1 for decades, Japan below for decades, Russia below for decades, Brazil a firm Catholic poor country-1.73, Spain 1.3, Italy 1.5 Ireland 1.7 even religion isn't saving us 90% of the planets population is at 2.1 or below or way below.
Were only going one way egghead
It took me a while but I worked out why climate change doesn't bother you...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17626-cockroaches-future-proofed-against-climate-change/
oloo". Were gone as a civilization anyway in a hundred fifty years, just a few hundred million old folks being looked after by robots that's the maths, throw in plummeting fertility rates, hardly any women want kids, rises in super bacteria and viruses and we'll be done and dusted as a species by 2200. Pooof gone with the dinosaurs and the woolly mammoth. The cockroaches will indeed inherit the earth bro and good luck to them | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"facts trump opinion. 99,% climate scientists state evidence of man made greenhouse gases impacting climate. I'm getting that 97% support anthropogenic. I would have thought the industrialists would have bought more scientists. But then it seems 3% is enough to win some people over. If 9 out of 10 Doctors diagnosed cancer in you .Who the fuck would choose the guy that gave you the all clear...
What’s the worst that can happen .??
We get clean air and reduce deaths from pollution for no good reason..Thats still a win
Climate change isn’t even a debate anymore amongst western nations .The green political ball is in play and gets votes and that’s all politicians care about.
They’ll make the necessary changes and policies.
Im quite positive about our future ..
The greens have gone a bit overboard on it in the uk though zero carbon by 2030.
The greens just place down a marker to force change .The change comes from whoever gets into power.Youll notice conservatives and labour are falling over themselves to be greener than each other...
The deniers are now a small insignificant minority these days...
All positive stuff..
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/27/climate-emergency-world-may-have-crossed-tipping-points
Let's go over tipping points again. Basically after we have gone through a tipping point NOTHING we can do will stop it from feeding itself.
Some people conservatively give us 12 years. Some give us 8. Some say it's already happened.
To have a zero carbon emissions target for 2050 is like having a parachute that opens on impact. It will be too little too late.
Greta Thunberg is not worried about inaction. She is worried that politicians will pay lip service to climate change control and not do what they promise."I think most countries will make the transition away from fossil fuels before 2050. The green momentum in politics has only just begun. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"facts trump opinion. 99,% climate scientists state evidence of man made greenhouse gases impacting climate. I'm getting that 97% support anthropogenic. I would have thought the industrialists would have bought more scientists. But then it seems 3% is enough to win some people over. If 9 out of 10 Doctors diagnosed cancer in you .Who the fuck would choose the guy that gave you the all clear...
What’s the worst that can happen .??
We get clean air and reduce deaths from pollution for no good reason..Thats still a win
Climate change isn’t even a debate anymore amongst western nations .The green political ball is in play and gets votes and that’s all politicians care about.
They’ll make the necessary changes and policies.
Im quite positive about our future ..
The greens have gone a bit overboard on it in the uk though zero carbon by 2030.
The greens just place down a marker to force change .The change comes from whoever gets into power.Youll notice conservatives and labour are falling over themselves to be greener than each other...
The deniers are now a small insignificant minority these days...
All positive stuff..
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/27/climate-emergency-world-may-have-crossed-tipping-points
Let's go over tipping points again. Basically after we have gone through a tipping point NOTHING we can do will stop it from feeding itself.
Some people conservatively give us 12 years. Some give us 8. Some say it's already happened.
To have a zero carbon emissions target for 2050 is like having a parachute that opens on impact. It will be too little too late.
Greta Thunberg is not worried about inaction. She is worried that politicians will pay lip service to climate change control and not do what they promise.
I think most countries will make the transition away from fossil fuels before 2050.
The green momentum in politics has only just begun.
"I like your positivity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"facts trump opinion. 99,% climate scientists state evidence of man made greenhouse gases impacting climate. I'm getting that 97% support anthropogenic. I would have thought the industrialists would have bought more scientists. But then it seems 3% is enough to win some people over. If 9 out of 10 Doctors diagnosed cancer in you .Who the fuck would choose the guy that gave you the all clear...
What’s the worst that can happen .??
We get clean air and reduce deaths from pollution for no good reason..Thats still a win
Climate change isn’t even a debate anymore amongst western nations .The green political ball is in play and gets votes and that’s all politicians care about.
They’ll make the necessary changes and policies.
Im quite positive about our future ..
The greens have gone a bit overboard on it in the uk though zero carbon by 2030.
The greens just place down a marker to force change .The change comes from whoever gets into power.Youll notice conservatives and labour are falling over themselves to be greener than each other...
The deniers are now a small insignificant minority these days...
All positive stuff..
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/27/climate-emergency-world-may-have-crossed-tipping-points
Let's go over tipping points again. Basically after we have gone through a tipping point NOTHING we can do will stop it from feeding itself.
Some people conservatively give us 12 years. Some give us 8. Some say it's already happened.
To have a zero carbon emissions target for 2050 is like having a parachute that opens on impact. It will be too little too late.
Greta Thunberg is not worried about inaction. She is worried that politicians will pay lip service to climate change control and not do what they promise.
I think most countries will make the transition away from fossil fuels before 2050.
The green momentum in politics has only just begun.
I like your positivity."I like the positivity too. I heard this argument today... Who are immune to climate change? The rich. When we're all gasping for air they will be fine. What is the biggest threat to the rich? The poor. See the French and Russian revolution. What is the best way to limit the numbers of the poor? Global warming. Who has it in their hands to stop global warming? The rich. Who might stop the rich from carrying on with global warming? The policians. Who decides which politicians we have? We do. So who are the only ones who can stop global warming? Us with our votes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The sooner we harness renewables the better. No more oil wars! Let the those middle eastern states do what the fuck they like to each other. "Hey Clem long time no see 
Yeah what we could really use right now is a clean viable alternative energy source to fossil fuels! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"facts trump opinion. 99,% climate scientists state evidence of man made greenhouse gases impacting climate. I'm getting that 97% support anthropogenic. I would have thought the industrialists would have bought more scientists. But then it seems 3% is enough to win some people over. If 9 out of 10 Doctors diagnosed cancer in you .Who the fuck would choose the guy that gave you the all clear...
What’s the worst that can happen .??
We get clean air and reduce deaths from pollution for no good reason..Thats still a win
Climate change isn’t even a debate anymore amongst western nations .The green political ball is in play and gets votes and that’s all politicians care about.
They’ll make the necessary changes and policies.
Im quite positive about our future ..
The greens have gone a bit overboard on it in the uk though zero carbon by 2030.
The greens just place down a marker to force change .The change comes from whoever gets into power.Youll notice conservatives and labour are falling over themselves to be greener than each other...
The deniers are now a small insignificant minority these days...
All positive stuff..
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/27/climate-emergency-world-may-have-crossed-tipping-points
Let's go over tipping points again. Basically after we have gone through a tipping point NOTHING we can do will stop it from feeding itself.
Some people conservatively give us 12 years. Some give us 8. Some say it's already happened.
To have a zero carbon emissions target for 2050 is like having a parachute that opens on impact. It will be too little too late.
Greta Thunberg is not worried about inaction. She is worried that politicians will pay lip service to climate change control and not do what they promise.
I think most countries will make the transition away from fossil fuels before 2050.
The green momentum in politics has only just begun.
I like your positivity.
I like the positivity too.
I heard this argument today...
Who are immune to climate change? The rich. When we're all gasping for air they will be fine.
What is the biggest threat to the rich? The poor. See the French and Russian revolution.
What is the best way to limit the numbers of the poor? Global warming.
Who has it in their hands to stop global warming? The rich.
Who might stop the rich from carrying on with global warming? The policians.
Who decides which politicians we have? We do.
So who are the only ones who can stop global warming? Us with our votes."How does that stop China? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"facts trump opinion. 99,% climate scientists state evidence of man made greenhouse gases impacting climate. I'm getting that 97% support anthropogenic. I would have thought the industrialists would have bought more scientists. But then it seems 3% is enough to win some people over. If 9 out of 10 Doctors diagnosed cancer in you .Who the fuck would choose the guy that gave you the all clear...
What’s the worst that can happen .??
We get clean air and reduce deaths from pollution for no good reason..Thats still a win
Climate change isn’t even a debate anymore amongst western nations .The green political ball is in play and gets votes and that’s all politicians care about.
They’ll make the necessary changes and policies.
Im quite positive about our future ..
The greens have gone a bit overboard on it in the uk though zero carbon by 2030.
The greens just place down a marker to force change .The change comes from whoever gets into power.Youll notice conservatives and labour are falling over themselves to be greener than each other...
The deniers are now a small insignificant minority these days...
All positive stuff..
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/27/climate-emergency-world-may-have-crossed-tipping-points
Let's go over tipping points again. Basically after we have gone through a tipping point NOTHING we can do will stop it from feeding itself.
Some people conservatively give us 12 years. Some give us 8. Some say it's already happened.
To have a zero carbon emissions target for 2050 is like having a parachute that opens on impact. It will be too little too late.
Greta Thunberg is not worried about inaction. She is worried that politicians will pay lip service to climate change control and not do what they promise.
I think most countries will make the transition away from fossil fuels before 2050.
The green momentum in politics has only just begun.
I like your positivity.
I like the positivity too.
I heard this argument today...
Who are immune to climate change? The rich. When we're all gasping for air they will be fine.
What is the biggest threat to the rich? The poor. See the French and Russian revolution.
What is the best way to limit the numbers of the poor? Global warming.
Who has it in their hands to stop global warming? The rich.
Who might stop the rich from carrying on with global warming? The policians.
Who decides which politicians we have? We do.
So who are the only ones who can stop global warming? Us with our votes.
How does that stop China?"A lot of China's industry is mass producing for export. Economic sanctions would really hurt them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Per capita emissions is the only way to go. Because otherwise you'll be expecting China to have less emmissions than Luxembourg. Simple logic really. China already has a negative growth rate. If they drop their per capita carbon footprint then all you can really do after that is shoot people. " It's a view point but I don't agree How would I be expecting China to have a lower emissions than Luxembourg? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Per capita emissions is the only way to go. Because otherwise you'll be expecting China to have less emmissions than Luxembourg. Simple logic really. China already has a negative growth rate. If they drop their per capita carbon footprint then all you can really do after that is shoot people. It's a view point but I don't agree How would I be expecting China to have a lower emissions than Luxembourg? " Because you wouldn't be looking at the size or population. Just emissions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"facts trump opinion. 99,% climate scientists state evidence of man made greenhouse gases impacting climate. I'm getting that 97% support anthropogenic. I would have thought the industrialists would have bought more scientists. But then it seems 3% is enough to win some people over. If 9 out of 10 Doctors diagnosed cancer in you .Who the fuck would choose the guy that gave you the all clear...
What’s the worst that can happen .??
We get clean air and reduce deaths from pollution for no good reason..Thats still a win
Climate change isn’t even a debate anymore amongst western nations .The green political ball is in play and gets votes and that’s all politicians care about.
They’ll make the necessary changes and policies.
Im quite positive about our future ..
The greens have gone a bit overboard on it in the uk though zero carbon by 2030.
The greens just place down a marker to force change .The change comes from whoever gets into power.Youll notice conservatives and labour are falling over themselves to be greener than each other...
The deniers are now a small insignificant minority these days...
All positive stuff..
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/27/climate-emergency-world-may-have-crossed-tipping-points
Let's go over tipping points again. Basically after we have gone through a tipping point NOTHING we can do will stop it from feeding itself.
Some people conservatively give us 12 years. Some give us 8. Some say it's already happened.
To have a zero carbon emissions target for 2050 is like having a parachute that opens on impact. It will be too little too late.
Greta Thunberg is not worried about inaction. She is worried that politicians will pay lip service to climate change control and not do what they promise.
I think most countries will make the transition away from fossil fuels before 2050.
The green momentum in politics has only just begun.
I like your positivity.
I like the positivity too.
I heard this argument today...
Who are immune to climate change? The rich. When we're all gasping for air they will be fine.
What is the biggest threat to the rich? The poor. See the French and Russian revolution.
What is the best way to limit the numbers of the poor? Global warming.
Who has it in their hands to stop global warming? The rich.
Who might stop the rich from carrying on with global warming? The policians.
Who decides which politicians we have? We do.
So who are the only ones who can stop global warming? Us with our votes.
How does that stop China?
A lot of China's industry is mass producing for export. Economic sanctions would really hurt them."They own us. That wouldn't work. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Per capita emissions is the only way to go. Because otherwise you'll be expecting China to have less emmissions than Luxembourg. Simple logic really. China already has a negative growth rate. If they drop their per capita carbon footprint then all you can really do after that is shoot people. It's a view point but I don't agree How would I be expecting China to have a lower emissions than Luxembourg? Because you wouldn't be looking at the size or population. Just emissions. " You need to look at the overall picture that China consumes nearly as much coal as the entire rest of the world put together for power but by capita where does China rank? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"facts trump opinion. 99,% climate scientists state evidence of man made greenhouse gases impacting climate. I'm getting that 97% support anthropogenic. I would have thought the industrialists would have bought more scientists. But then it seems 3% is enough to win some people over. If 9 out of 10 Doctors diagnosed cancer in you .Who the fuck would choose the guy that gave you the all clear...
What’s the worst that can happen .??
We get clean air and reduce deaths from pollution for no good reason..Thats still a win
Climate change isn’t even a debate anymore amongst western nations .The green political ball is in play and gets votes and that’s all politicians care about.
They’ll make the necessary changes and policies.
Im quite positive about our future ..
The greens have gone a bit overboard on it in the uk though zero carbon by 2030.
The greens just place down a marker to force change .The change comes from whoever gets into power.Youll notice conservatives and labour are falling over themselves to be greener than each other...
The deniers are now a small insignificant minority these days...
All positive stuff..
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/27/climate-emergency-world-may-have-crossed-tipping-points
Let's go over tipping points again. Basically after we have gone through a tipping point NOTHING we can do will stop it from feeding itself.
Some people conservatively give us 12 years. Some give us 8. Some say it's already happened.
To have a zero carbon emissions target for 2050 is like having a parachute that opens on impact. It will be too little too late.
Greta Thunberg is not worried about inaction. She is worried that politicians will pay lip service to climate change control and not do what they promise.
I think most countries will make the transition away from fossil fuels before 2050.
The green momentum in politics has only just begun.
I like your positivity.
I like the positivity too.
I heard this argument today...
Who are immune to climate change? The rich. When we're all gasping for air they will be fine.
What is the biggest threat to the rich? The poor. See the French and Russian revolution.
What is the best way to limit the numbers of the poor? Global warming.
Who has it in their hands to stop global warming? The rich.
Who might stop the rich from carrying on with global warming? The policians.
Who decides which politicians we have? We do.
So who are the only ones who can stop global warming? Us with our votes.
How does that stop China?
A lot of China's industry is mass producing for export. Economic sanctions would really hurt them.
They own us. That wouldn't work. "Yup. State capture is a problem. You first need the correct politicians. Who's voted? | |||
(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 |
"Whilst yes we do affect it abit but most of it is the natural cycle there have been extreme weather before we was here." True shag. It's all the sun, ice cores prove it. It's been hotter. There are still polar bears. Unfortunately you can't make people feel guilty from solar cycles, and you can't increase their taxes because of sun spots. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
