By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
The teen has polarised many with her passionate speeches about climate change. Sincere teenage fear about her planet's future, or scaremongering rhetoric that is being bankrolled by some organisation(s) from the shadows?
1
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 08:34 - Oct 3 with 3189 views
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 09:16 - Sep 28 by hubble
What I find interesting is that in my social media feeds, anyone daring to critique Ms Thunberg, or question the agenda behind her, is immediately labelled a misogynist (or far worse). Even in this thread it seems entirely acceptable to single out "middle aged white men" as the sole enemy of the current media darling. All this does is stifle debate (which is perhaps the goal). I know for a fact female friends of mine find the way Ms Thunberg is being used (some might say manipulated) disturbing, yet they have all told me they either don't dare express this opinion publicly, or that if they have, they've been shut down or ignored.
Personally I am sceptical of the focus on CO2 and even more sceptical of the myriad ways presented to limit it and the effects of doing that will have.
Luckily she's fighting for the planet rather than trump. As you say this a way to stifle debate. The left would collectively behave no differently, if she was part of trump's propaganda campaign.
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 15:03 - Oct 2 by hubble
I can't give you the gist - it's too involved and I'd have to provide links to all the evidence he references. You need to watch it. Google it if it doesn't play - Patrick Moore the sensible environmentalist is the title (posted on YouTube September 2015).
R from Afar hasn't watched it and posts the usual stuff above. No, CO2 is NOT proven to be the greenhouse gas you say it is - since there are numerous occurrences in the geological record where CO2 has been much higher than it is now, without any correlation to global temperature rise, in fact the opposite has often been true. You need to watch the video - as I requested - before coming back to me with what you claim is unequivocal evidence - but isn't.
Here's the link again just in case it works this time:
I found this one by him.
Patrick - a biologist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(consultant) - says there has been no statistically warming this century, which is simply wrong. He also misunderstands how CO2 works in the atmosphere, seeming to think CO2 is either good or bad (he says good). That is also incorrect, with CO2 and climate, it is a delicate balancing act. CO2 is not bad except above certain levels. We need a certain level of greenhouse gases, including CO2, to trap enough warmth to allow life to live on earth. The greenhouse gases caused by the birth and spread of farming, particularly livestock farming, staved off the next ice age, it's just that the planet's emissions, driven by human activity, have skyrocketed and for decades, have been at a level where they are trapping too much heat for the climate and natural environments we are used to, and which have allowed civilisation to develop, to persist. That is the issue.
As for the argument that every country needs to commit to a serious reduction in greenhouse gases, that is very sensible from a motivational and collaborative perspective but may not be factually true because a tiny number of countries/blocs account for the vast bulk of the emissions (China 27.5%, US 14.8%, EU 28 9.3%). I think all nations need to be onboard, the developed nations need to cut more not least because they tend to have the know-how to use greener alternatives and have also already caused the bulk of the damage.
"Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1."
0
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 10:00 - Oct 3 with 3128 views
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 09:01 - Oct 3 by R_from_afar
I found this one by him.
Patrick - a biologist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(consultant) - says there has been no statistically warming this century, which is simply wrong. He also misunderstands how CO2 works in the atmosphere, seeming to think CO2 is either good or bad (he says good). That is also incorrect, with CO2 and climate, it is a delicate balancing act. CO2 is not bad except above certain levels. We need a certain level of greenhouse gases, including CO2, to trap enough warmth to allow life to live on earth. The greenhouse gases caused by the birth and spread of farming, particularly livestock farming, staved off the next ice age, it's just that the planet's emissions, driven by human activity, have skyrocketed and for decades, have been at a level where they are trapping too much heat for the climate and natural environments we are used to, and which have allowed civilisation to develop, to persist. That is the issue.
As for the argument that every country needs to commit to a serious reduction in greenhouse gases, that is very sensible from a motivational and collaborative perspective but may not be factually true because a tiny number of countries/blocs account for the vast bulk of the emissions (China 27.5%, US 14.8%, EU 28 9.3%). I think all nations need to be onboard, the developed nations need to cut more not least because they tend to have the know-how to use greener alternatives and have also already caused the bulk of the damage.
If you'd care to watch the video I posted (but doesn't seem to show up for some reason which is frustrating), you can see that historical data shows there is no correlation between CO2 levels and climate warming. That's a key point. However, as I said google 'Patrick Moore the sensible environmentalist', then watch the video, then come back to me.
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 09:04 - Oct 2 by hubble
Climate change advocacy - as illustrated in this thread as much as anywhere else - reminds me of a religious cult. I say this because the vast majority of advocates do not understand the science, they are simply parroting the mainstream agenda that they believe in - apparently unequivocally. From my perspective, this is not a rational or scientific approach.
I am a man-made climate change sceptic. Not a 'denier' as the standard pejorative goes - but a sceptic. I am a sceptic because I have investigated the scientific claims myself, and find them extremely flawed. The chief flaw in the standard climate-change model is the idea that CO2 is the driver of climate change. From my investigations, I find this to be an utterly bogus claim. I will present evidence at the end of my post. Because it is bogus, I have to question what lies behind these claims. It is another common trope amongst climate change advocates that any form of dissent from the orthodox doctrine of man-made climate change must be backed by the oil lobby (or similar vested interests). What I find interesting is that there is no equivalent questioning of what lies behind the CO2 agenda. Just a little digging will reveal a network of vested-interest parties who stand to massively gain (and are already gaining) from the CO2 reduction and carbon capture movement. These parties are squarely behind Ms Thunberg in what could be termed 'the manufacturing of consent'. When investigating any highly charged media campaign it is useful to ask: cui bono - who benefits? (For those of you who are interested, here's an article that explains the web of vested-interest parties: http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/01/21/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-f
I feel I should make it clear at this point that I am NOT saying we should carrying on destroying our planet's ecosystem through industrial pollution, mass deforestation, industrial animal farming and so on. I am squarely against this - possibly more so than many anthropogenic climate change advocates - because I have been actively living as lightly as I can for a long time, long before most advocates even became aware of 'climate change'. To all the climate change advocates in this thread I ask you: have you become vegan? Have you stopped flying? Do you shop locally? Do you mainly walk or cycle or use public transport? Are you also advocating for a complete root and branch transformation of the current financial system? Are you actively participating in that? If your answer is no to all (or even one) of these questions, then you are part of the problem, not the solution.
Okay, now to the evidence - or lack of it - for CO2 being the driver of climate change. Here is Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore explaining this in a talk he gave a few years ago. Before you reply to my post, can I ask that you watch his talk (it's fairly short - less than 20 minutes) first? What he has to say should be fairly eye-opening, if you have been going along with the so-called scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate-change and CO2 as a key driver of this. But this is far from the only rational deconstruction of the climate-change/CO2 agenda. There are other scientific reasons to be sceptical of the agenda, not least that there seems to be a misunderstanding (whether wilful or not) of basic physics in much climate change advocacy. And there is also the fact that nearly all scientific investigation these days relies on funding, and people will rarely bite the hand that feeds them, even if they discover they may be profoundly wrong. A classic example I'd like to cite to support this is the 'dark matter' debate that has dominated quantum physics research (and its funding) for decades, even though not a single experiment or theory has been proven (or remotely proven), and even though it should be obvious that 'dark matter' is in fact a red herring, just as CO2 being a climate change driver is.
Patrick Moore's talk:
[Post edited 2 Oct 2019 9:05]
Well said mate, even if you're video doesn't work your own words just about cover this whole sorry saga.
This is all about keeping the people down trodden. Religion did that job for centuries, as that wanes the powerful look for something new to demonise us with. All they ever need is enough fools to believe in it.
0
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 12:27 - Oct 3 with 3041 views
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 09:01 - Oct 3 by R_from_afar
I found this one by him.
Patrick - a biologist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(consultant) - says there has been no statistically warming this century, which is simply wrong. He also misunderstands how CO2 works in the atmosphere, seeming to think CO2 is either good or bad (he says good). That is also incorrect, with CO2 and climate, it is a delicate balancing act. CO2 is not bad except above certain levels. We need a certain level of greenhouse gases, including CO2, to trap enough warmth to allow life to live on earth. The greenhouse gases caused by the birth and spread of farming, particularly livestock farming, staved off the next ice age, it's just that the planet's emissions, driven by human activity, have skyrocketed and for decades, have been at a level where they are trapping too much heat for the climate and natural environments we are used to, and which have allowed civilisation to develop, to persist. That is the issue.
As for the argument that every country needs to commit to a serious reduction in greenhouse gases, that is very sensible from a motivational and collaborative perspective but may not be factually true because a tiny number of countries/blocs account for the vast bulk of the emissions (China 27.5%, US 14.8%, EU 28 9.3%). I think all nations need to be onboard, the developed nations need to cut more not least because they tend to have the know-how to use greener alternatives and have also already caused the bulk of the damage.
No one has suggested that every country needs to commit. The argument is that one country alone can't reverse the trend, a global effort is required to make a tangible difference. Your stats (China 27.5%, US 14.8%, EU 28 9.3%) bear this out.
Also if we're talking about protecting future generations it makes sense to educate the world rather than just focus on the current main polluters. It wasn't that long ago that China didn't feature on this list so who knows who will pop up next. If you don't include folk in the conversation then you can't reasonably get upset if in future they become major polluters.
[Post edited 3 Oct 2019 12:30]
0
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 12:44 - Oct 3 with 3022 views
Getting sick of all the venom on facebook and others towards her. The kid is Autistic and like a lot of high functioning Autistic people she has the bit between her teeth. It seems to be fat middle aged men and similar women who have it in for her. Sick of them. Get back in your Daily Mail 4x4s and f*ck off.
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 10:00 - Oct 3 by hubble
If you'd care to watch the video I posted (but doesn't seem to show up for some reason which is frustrating), you can see that historical data shows there is no correlation between CO2 levels and climate warming. That's a key point. However, as I said google 'Patrick Moore the sensible environmentalist', then watch the video, then come back to me.
Edit: Hold on, maybe this will work:
[Post edited 3 Oct 2019 10:03]
Thanks, I did watch that.
Temperatures aren't increasing? Sorry, wrong.
He cites CSIRO for evidence that CO2 is a plant food (which it is), but here is what CSIRO thinks of climate change: "the greatest ecological, economic, and social challenge of our time" https://www.publish.csiro.au/book/6558/
He said "ocean acidification is a complete fabrication, it is chemically impossible". But here it is:
And apart from trying to debunk the link between CO2 and temperature by pointing out times when there hasn't been an exact correlation between the two, without conceding that there may have been a lot of other factors involved over the eons his data was spanning, he didn't address the scientific explanation for CO2 as a greenhouse gas at all.
Greenpeace say humans are the enemy of the earth — that is his take on them; I am a Friends of the Earth subscriber and I have never felt like humans were being porrayed as the earth’s enemies
His point that science should be the basis of initiatives is fair enough.
“31,000 scientsists *and professionals*” - hmm, professionals…. Yet it has been statistically proven that 97% of *climate scientists* agree climate change is man-made.
A fundamental flaw in his logic is that CO2 is not the only thing which affects climate on the earth. Other factors include the motion of the earth (tilt, shape of orbit round the sun) and volcanic activity. The “hockey stick (curve) analysis” done by Michael E Mann, and checked myriad times since by other climate scientists, looked at the recent warming trend and discovered that when you allow for the other factors which influence our climate apart from greenhouse gases, you end up with inexplicable warming which can only be down to those gases.
How can we be in “one of the coldest periods in the history of life on earth” yet still be in an interglacial period? That is illogical. And where are his figures from? Some sources are given but some are not, e.g. his erroneous graph which supposedly shows sea levels are not rising. He even (mis)quotes the Met Office saying they are not indicating any warming in recent times.
He also homes in on individual locations, yet the whole issue is about average *global* temperatures. The Thames freezing or it being phenomenally hot in a city or country is not significant.
No one is saying we don’t need any CO2 (his comments about plants needing it). See my previous comments about *levels* of CO2.
Scientific Predictions work on the basis of degrees of likelihood not absolute proof. The Antarctic is not losing significant ice overall, currently, but the arctic is and this has been widely reported. The ice cap there is thinning. That is also the reason why shipping is now increasingly using the northwest passage.
The bit about ocean acidification being a myth is just nonsense, bad science.
Quite apart from anything else zero emissions will not mean zero human beings because a (low) percentage of any given volume of emitted CO2 stays in the atmosphere forever, plus even if humans humans don’t emit any CO2, plants and animals do.
The section criticising Greenpeace for “attacking” a Russian oil rig with a diesel powered ship is ridiculous. The claim that Greenpeace are against biofuels because they want the land to be left as wilderness is completely wrong, Greenpeace are against biofuels because they are a poor use of land which could be used for producing food and because there simply isn’t enough land on the earth to replace fossil fuels with biofuels anyway.
The section about tar sands is surreal. The main argument against tar sands is that not only that it is yet another fossil fuel, but also that it is an uneceonomic one; with conventional oil fields, like in Saudi, one barrel of oil of effort leads to about 20 barrels of output but with tar sands, whose extraction is far more energy intensive, it’s about one to five. It’s nice that the tar sands are being reclaimed, as he shows, but what is not sustainable is all the emissions that that fuel source will have caused.
I don’t think fossil fuel companies should be demonised — after all, we are not forced to, as an example, drive a fossil fuelled car — but we need to move on from fossil fuels, for the sake of the environment and humanity and because they are finite anyway.
"Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1."
reading the 'electric car' debate the other day, on another forum, it seems the manufacturers have decided to go their own way with battery size, power, charge time etc, and here's a real kicker...... even the bloody socket on the car to take the charging cable, and there are apparently at least 3 different sorts, needing infrastructure.
Shouldnt we be making minimum specifications required for each electric car? As for charging times and places its a joke too.
Mind you, poor old Britain will hammer its population while the rest of the world just doesnt care. If it did, we would see millions a week protecting in each country.
So it doesnt matter what Greta says or does at her parents and backers request , or that Ponce Harry (spelling mistake made on purpose) says, but does the opposite while sueing the Daily Mail, things wont change.
You will see U-shaped valleys which for anyone who has studied basic geology will know were formed by ice. The ice in the last mini-ice age extended as far south as The Lake District and northern England. That ice retreated naturally long before any impact man could have on the environment which suggests temperature fluctuations historically.
I'm no scientist and the truth is normally to found in the middle of the portrayal that both sides gives as their side of the argument, which are only put forward to better serve their business interests or agendas but it could just be that climate change is a completely natural thing... who knows. Can you really compare data collected today against that of 150 years ago. How accurate was the recording equipment back then? Again...I don't know or pretend to know. I also don't take anything I read as fact.
What is disgusting is how we don't protect the environment we have and are happy to polute the planet, or have someone else do it on our behalf, all to satisfy our addiction to buying cheap shit we don't need....but the governments need us to keep doing that to keep their coffers full which is why they don't take meaningful action. I'd start by banning Xmas and all the materialist shit surrounding that.
1
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 23:07 - Oct 3 with 2797 views
And rather than being a voice for the downtrodden (did someone actually say that?) he appears to be a rent-a-mouth piece lobbyist/ consultant for not only climate change denial but diverse (or not so diverse) corporate entities such as the logging industry, the nuclear power industry, genetically modified crops, and rather comically Monsanto.
Here he claims an evil gloop produced and commercially-sold by Monsanto, now the subject of numerous million pound law-suits and banned in some countries, a herbicide called Roundup containing something nasty called glyphosate, is not only not carcinogenic but is actually safe to drink - the interviewer then offers him a glass. This is hilarious:
I smell a charlatan.
7
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 23:21 - Oct 3 with 2785 views
And rather than being a voice for the downtrodden (did someone actually say that?) he appears to be a rent-a-mouth piece lobbyist/ consultant for not only climate change denial but diverse (or not so diverse) corporate entities such as the logging industry, the nuclear power industry, genetically modified crops, and rather comically Monsanto.
Here he claims an evil gloop produced and commercially-sold by Monsanto, now the subject of numerous million pound law-suits and banned in some countries, a herbicide called Roundup containing something nasty called glyphosate, is not only not carcinogenic but is actually safe to drink - the interviewer then offers him a glass. This is hilarious:
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 15:28 - Oct 3 by RangersDave
reading the 'electric car' debate the other day, on another forum, it seems the manufacturers have decided to go their own way with battery size, power, charge time etc, and here's a real kicker...... even the bloody socket on the car to take the charging cable, and there are apparently at least 3 different sorts, needing infrastructure.
Shouldnt we be making minimum specifications required for each electric car? As for charging times and places its a joke too.
Mind you, poor old Britain will hammer its population while the rest of the world just doesnt care. If it did, we would see millions a week protecting in each country.
So it doesnt matter what Greta says or does at her parents and backers request , or that Ponce Harry (spelling mistake made on purpose) says, but does the opposite while sueing the Daily Mail, things wont change.
Futue Mundum
Even if I could afford one. Which I can't. I'll be staying as far away as possible from electric cars, for as long as I can and it's not because I don't want one.
It's entirely possible that I am completely wrong - it wouldn't be the first time! And if so then I hope you will be generous and see my post as encouraging dialectic (which is, after all, what this debate is about, isn't it), as opposed to mere pompous poppycock.....
And I certainly take on board that Patrick Moore is backed by the oil lobby - but that doesn't ipso facto make him a charlatan.
But.... in the response to his talk above a couple of you have misrepresented what he says - for example Isaw - he doesn't say 'temperatures aren't increasing' - far from it - he says there has been a steady warming trend since the 18th century. What he says in the talk is that hasn't been any significant change in global temp in the last 5 years (at time of giving talk). Also he didn't say CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas, he said the effect of increasing amounts of CO2 didn't correlate with global warming trends - and he cited periods in geological time when the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was way higher than it is now, with no correlative increase in global temps, in fact often the reverse. However, what he didn't factor in - and I'm doing your homework for you now - is that it's not the amount of CO2 that some climate change scientists are claiming is the issue - it's the rate of increase that's unprecedented, and this is what's causing the problem, because the biosphere can't adapt quickly enough. So - CO2 of itself is not a problem - it is the rate of increase that's the problem. This I can buy, because if we accept the basic tenet of chaos theory - sensitive dependence on initial conditions - then man-made activity may be pushing the envelope too hard and too fast for the system to remain stable, leading to rapid change and extreme weather events. But this still doesn't necessarily make CO2 the criminal and it also doesn't mean that hugely expensive (all at massive cost to the tax-payer) CO2 capture and reduction will make any difference at all. And there *are* vested interests in promoting this agenda for that very reason (big bucks to be made) although none of you addressed the report I linked to in my original post that shows these.
Another thing those of you who took the time to respond haven't factored in, is water vapour - which is something Moore also talks about at length. Water vapour is a much bigger factor than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, yet as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says:
"Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However, changes in its concentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood."
And:
"As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the absolute humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to 'hold' more water when it's warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a 'positive feedback loop'. However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop. As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up). The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate change. As yet, though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops. Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor."
"The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood."
And:
"However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop."
In other words, the science around the biggest greenhouse factor (outside of the sun, which is also isn't properly factored in in climate change science IMO) - a way bigger factor than CO2 - is still poorly understood and the effects unclear. SO it's impossible to make accurate predictions as to climate change, as to how we are affecting it, and most relevantly to my argument - what difference limiting CO2 will have. Little or possibly none at all perhaps. We don't know. So why base an entire industry on something so poorly understood? If Ms Thunberg is an advocate for THAT, then to me that smacks of controlling the narrative for vested interests, NOT the interests of the planet per se.
Finally, the effect of the solar activity doesn't seem to be properly factored in in most climate change models. The sun has far and away the biggest effect on global temperatures - and changes in solar activity, specifically increases - will have a much larger impact on global warming than anything to do with CO2. The sun is currently in an increased activity uptick - higher energy output across ALL energy spectrums - NOT just visible light energy (which is what most CC models use), and so we could conclude than increasing global temperatures are driven by this, first and foremost. For example, when we see the aurora borealis, what we are seeing is the effect of high-energy particles from the sun interacting with our atmosphere - and the warming effect on the atmosphere of this activity is equivalent to a massive electric heater...
So bottom line, I'm saying I remain sceptical about the CO2 issue, although I do think that man-made CO2 rises could be pushing the climate envelope too fast, therefore being a short-term contributing factor in climate change.
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 08:48 - Oct 4 by BazzaInTheLoft
If I found a lump on my bollock and 97% of doctors told me to get surgery I know what i’d fcking do.
Same should be said of climate change.
[Post edited 4 Oct 2019 8:48]
But surgery on the entire planet is a bit different from surgery on your bollocks.
I can't help thinking your politics is influencing your call on this issue, perhaps mine too, but Hubble's is a very balanced observation and worth taking account.
I don't deny there is climate change but I don't trust the answers being given, far too many vested interests manipulating the easily led.
Also, I can never get my head around the fact that 16 year olds and their followers are apparently better informed on saving a planet than the planet itself which has seen huge climate changes, huge reconstructions of it's make up and yet resolutely carries on supporting all forms of life for, ooh, about 4 billion years now and counting.
0
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 10:51 - Oct 4 with 2616 views
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 09:46 - Oct 4 by stevec
But surgery on the entire planet is a bit different from surgery on your bollocks.
I can't help thinking your politics is influencing your call on this issue, perhaps mine too, but Hubble's is a very balanced observation and worth taking account.
I don't deny there is climate change but I don't trust the answers being given, far too many vested interests manipulating the easily led.
Also, I can never get my head around the fact that 16 year olds and their followers are apparently better informed on saving a planet than the planet itself which has seen huge climate changes, huge reconstructions of it's make up and yet resolutely carries on supporting all forms of life for, ooh, about 4 billion years now and counting.
'But surgery on the entire planet is a bit different from surgery on your bollocks...'
Depends on the size of his bollocks. They don't call him 'The Spacehopper' for nothing.
'What do we want? We don't know! When do we want it? Now!'
2
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 11:25 - Oct 4 with 2584 views
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 09:46 - Oct 4 by stevec
But surgery on the entire planet is a bit different from surgery on your bollocks.
I can't help thinking your politics is influencing your call on this issue, perhaps mine too, but Hubble's is a very balanced observation and worth taking account.
I don't deny there is climate change but I don't trust the answers being given, far too many vested interests manipulating the easily led.
Also, I can never get my head around the fact that 16 year olds and their followers are apparently better informed on saving a planet than the planet itself which has seen huge climate changes, huge reconstructions of it's make up and yet resolutely carries on supporting all forms of life for, ooh, about 4 billion years now and counting.
The is no doubt and no argument that climate change is a natural and regular occurrence on the life of our planet
However for the vast majority of that time the earths climate would not have been able to sustain most of the species alive today particularly humans
What we are talking about is accelerated climate change caused by humans which is supported by an incredible weight of evidence. you dont need to read it all to understand the truth just apply some realism and common sense
I think anyone that denies the impact on human activity and the burning of fossil fuels on climate change is akin to a Flat Earther being shown video of the Earth from space stations and still argueing that the Earth is flat
1
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 11:55 - Oct 4 with 2550 views
Its so much easier to attack the messenger than the message .... they know that denying that CC is happening is actually just an admission of corruption or idiocy so they go for the person speaking up, be it a Swedish schoolgirl or the mixed-race wife of a minor royal
1
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 12:58 - Oct 4 with 2499 views
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 15:28 - Oct 3 by RangersDave
reading the 'electric car' debate the other day, on another forum, it seems the manufacturers have decided to go their own way with battery size, power, charge time etc, and here's a real kicker...... even the bloody socket on the car to take the charging cable, and there are apparently at least 3 different sorts, needing infrastructure.
Shouldnt we be making minimum specifications required for each electric car? As for charging times and places its a joke too.
Mind you, poor old Britain will hammer its population while the rest of the world just doesnt care. If it did, we would see millions a week protecting in each country.
So it doesnt matter what Greta says or does at her parents and backers request , or that Ponce Harry (spelling mistake made on purpose) says, but does the opposite while sueing the Daily Mail, things wont change.
Futue Mundum
reading the 'electric car' debate the other day, on another forum, it seems the manufacturers have decided to go their own way with battery size, power, charge time etc, and here's a real kicker...... even the bloody socket on the car to take the charging cable, and there are apparently at least 3 different sorts, needing infrastructure. >> Yes, this is annoying, and I say that as a person who has driven an electric car for over four years (not non-stop, I hasten to add LOL). However, remember you can recharge from a standard three pin socket. OK, that is slower, but it's fine to do it.
Shouldnt we be making minimum specifications required for each electric car? >> Standardisation would be a good thing, yes. As for charging times and places its a joke too. >> There is real progress on this front. Some incredibly fast commercial chargers are appearing (100 kW) at the same time as real-world ranges for the cars are getting pretty impressive. Bear in mind that not many people are going to drive hundreds of miles without stopping. BP has switched on the first of the chargers it is adding to its "petrol" stations and its rivals will have to follow.
Mind you, poor old Britain will hammer its population while the rest of the world just doesnt care. If it did, we would see millions a week protecting in each country. >> Actually, renewables are the polar opposite of "hammering" the population. The price of renewable energy tends to fall over time while the price of fossil fuels will only rise, ditto nuclear (University of Greenwich research). Imagine: Power stations where you don't have to go and get/pay for the fuel! Build your tidal lagoon then, apart from the maintenance any power station will need, still back and watch it provide power. Free energy, and energy which is not causing illness and premature deaths.
Some types of renewable energy are already cheaper than the traditional alternatives e.g. onshore wind is *the* cheapest form of energy and is way cheaper than what we will pay for the power Hinckley C will generate, if it ever proves possible to build a design of power station which has never been built (sister power plant in France 10 years behind schedule).
In any case, if we stick with renewables, we will face rising costs. The easy to get at oil fields are all already being used. New sources of oil need more complicated and costly techniques and are in remote areas or difficult locations, in some cases (the arctic) places where an accident could not only endanger the environment but the workers due to its remoteness.
In other words, you can expect to pay way more for the fuel you put in your car and gas you use to heat your home.
That's before we talk about risk and security. Do we want to have to rely on other countries thousands of miles away for our energy? We could become self-sufficient in energy or even a net exporter of it. We are absolutely blessed when it comes to renewables, we live on a windswept island. It's now even possible to create an off-shore windfarm with floating turbines, so you can exploit deep water (fixed turbines are not normally used in water deeper than 50 metres).
So if someone gave you a Tesla roadster, 0-60 in three seconds and a 600 mile range, you wouldn't fancy it?
"Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1."
1
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 13:32 - Oct 4 with 2477 views
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 09:46 - Oct 4 by stevec
But surgery on the entire planet is a bit different from surgery on your bollocks.
I can't help thinking your politics is influencing your call on this issue, perhaps mine too, but Hubble's is a very balanced observation and worth taking account.
I don't deny there is climate change but I don't trust the answers being given, far too many vested interests manipulating the easily led.
Also, I can never get my head around the fact that 16 year olds and their followers are apparently better informed on saving a planet than the planet itself which has seen huge climate changes, huge reconstructions of it's make up and yet resolutely carries on supporting all forms of life for, ooh, about 4 billion years now and counting.
What do you do for a living Steve?
0
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 08:15 - Oct 5 with 2363 views
What does everyone make of this Greta Thunberg debate? on 08:38 - Oct 4 by hubble
It's entirely possible that I am completely wrong - it wouldn't be the first time! And if so then I hope you will be generous and see my post as encouraging dialectic (which is, after all, what this debate is about, isn't it), as opposed to mere pompous poppycock.....
And I certainly take on board that Patrick Moore is backed by the oil lobby - but that doesn't ipso facto make him a charlatan.
But.... in the response to his talk above a couple of you have misrepresented what he says - for example Isaw - he doesn't say 'temperatures aren't increasing' - far from it - he says there has been a steady warming trend since the 18th century. What he says in the talk is that hasn't been any significant change in global temp in the last 5 years (at time of giving talk). Also he didn't say CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas, he said the effect of increasing amounts of CO2 didn't correlate with global warming trends - and he cited periods in geological time when the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was way higher than it is now, with no correlative increase in global temps, in fact often the reverse. However, what he didn't factor in - and I'm doing your homework for you now - is that it's not the amount of CO2 that some climate change scientists are claiming is the issue - it's the rate of increase that's unprecedented, and this is what's causing the problem, because the biosphere can't adapt quickly enough. So - CO2 of itself is not a problem - it is the rate of increase that's the problem. This I can buy, because if we accept the basic tenet of chaos theory - sensitive dependence on initial conditions - then man-made activity may be pushing the envelope too hard and too fast for the system to remain stable, leading to rapid change and extreme weather events. But this still doesn't necessarily make CO2 the criminal and it also doesn't mean that hugely expensive (all at massive cost to the tax-payer) CO2 capture and reduction will make any difference at all. And there *are* vested interests in promoting this agenda for that very reason (big bucks to be made) although none of you addressed the report I linked to in my original post that shows these.
Another thing those of you who took the time to respond haven't factored in, is water vapour - which is something Moore also talks about at length. Water vapour is a much bigger factor than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, yet as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says:
"Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However, changes in its concentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood."
And:
"As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the absolute humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to 'hold' more water when it's warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a 'positive feedback loop'. However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop. As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up). The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate change. As yet, though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops. Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor."
"The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood."
And:
"However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop."
In other words, the science around the biggest greenhouse factor (outside of the sun, which is also isn't properly factored in in climate change science IMO) - a way bigger factor than CO2 - is still poorly understood and the effects unclear. SO it's impossible to make accurate predictions as to climate change, as to how we are affecting it, and most relevantly to my argument - what difference limiting CO2 will have. Little or possibly none at all perhaps. We don't know. So why base an entire industry on something so poorly understood? If Ms Thunberg is an advocate for THAT, then to me that smacks of controlling the narrative for vested interests, NOT the interests of the planet per se.
Finally, the effect of the solar activity doesn't seem to be properly factored in in most climate change models. The sun has far and away the biggest effect on global temperatures - and changes in solar activity, specifically increases - will have a much larger impact on global warming than anything to do with CO2. The sun is currently in an increased activity uptick - higher energy output across ALL energy spectrums - NOT just visible light energy (which is what most CC models use), and so we could conclude than increasing global temperatures are driven by this, first and foremost. For example, when we see the aurora borealis, what we are seeing is the effect of high-energy particles from the sun interacting with our atmosphere - and the warming effect on the atmosphere of this activity is equivalent to a massive electric heater...
So bottom line, I'm saying I remain sceptical about the CO2 issue, although I do think that man-made CO2 rises could be pushing the climate envelope too fast, therefore being a short-term contributing factor in climate change.
No warming in the last five years? Try these last five years... ...but you know this, don't you? We are going through a very well-reported spate of record global temperatures.
He doesn't address CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Instead he waves distractions such as water vapour as a greenhouse gas and CO2 as a necessary (that is, needed) component of Earth's atmosphere, both true but not relevant.
CO2 is transparent to solar radiation, but reflects back more of the longwave infrared which the solar radiation is converted into. This is why it is a 'greenhouse' gas. And the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution is driving the rapid current increase in temperature. We are causing this.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
