Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
Mr GrimNasty said:
Oh dear, BBC Nicky Campbell and his usual bunch of phone in experts (aka green fanatics) and eco-mental weirdos are incandescent. Nut job rhetoric and factoids reach new levels and NIcky's claim of journalistic professional impartiality is shown as a complete lie!
Eco energy is cheaper, 'swarms' of earthquakes, evil big business pursuing cash at all costs, accelerating global warming, tap water the colour the likes no one has ever seen before, Germany is the renewables icon..........
LOL.
Germany is what?Eco energy is cheaper, 'swarms' of earthquakes, evil big business pursuing cash at all costs, accelerating global warming, tap water the colour the likes no one has ever seen before, Germany is the renewables icon..........
LOL.
A Greenie said that?
Well, excellent.
Assuming we end up chained in Europe as Dave has told them we will be perhaps the parishes of Germany and Poland, which seem to have lots of lovely seams of lignite available for strip mining and similar, can send some to us. After all, it's Europe, right? And so all resources are to be shared equally, right?
And it must be OK 'cos Germany is a green icon that can do no wrong .... or should that be i-Con?
LongQ said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Oh dear, BBC Nicky Campbell and his usual bunch of phone in experts (aka green fanatics) and eco-mental weirdos are incandescent. Nut job rhetoric and factoids reach new levels and NIcky's claim of journalistic professional impartiality is shown as a complete lie!
Eco energy is cheaper, 'swarms' of earthquakes, evil big business pursuing cash at all costs, accelerating global warming, tap water the colour the likes no one has ever seen before, Germany is the renewables icon..........
LOL.
Germany is what?Eco energy is cheaper, 'swarms' of earthquakes, evil big business pursuing cash at all costs, accelerating global warming, tap water the colour the likes no one has ever seen before, Germany is the renewables icon..........
LOL.
A Greenie said that?
Well, excellent.
Assuming we end up chained in Europe as Dave has told them we will be perhaps the parishes of Germany and Poland, which seem to have lots of lovely seams of lignite available for strip mining and similar, can send some to us. After all, it's Europe, right? And so all resources are to be shared equally, right?
And it must be OK 'cos Germany is a green icon that can do no wrong .... or should that be i-Con?
XJ40 said:
robinessex said:
Climate Change, and hence our whole power generation, had got to be the most screwed up b
ks EVER. Just about every fkwit politician in the whole bloody world has got it wrong.
ks EVER. Just about every fkwit politician in the whole bloody world has got it wrong.
Then again you can count the number of independent-thinking politicians on one bumcheek (or perhaps two!) of a pair of knickers.
There is a distinguished minority including Peter Lilley in the HoC and not forgetting former President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus. He's lived under the cosh and knows the score...this is his speech "The mass delusion of climate change" which is well worth the time invested if anyone hasn't seen it yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idKceFvO7AM
Einion Yrth said:
LongQ said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
Oh dear, BBC Nicky Campbell and his usual bunch of phone in experts (aka green fanatics) and eco-mental weirdos are incandescent. Nut job rhetoric and factoids reach new levels and NIcky's claim of journalistic professional impartiality is shown as a complete lie!
Eco energy is cheaper, 'swarms' of earthquakes, evil big business pursuing cash at all costs, accelerating global warming, tap water the colour the likes no one has ever seen before, Germany is the renewables icon..........
LOL.
Germany is what?Eco energy is cheaper, 'swarms' of earthquakes, evil big business pursuing cash at all costs, accelerating global warming, tap water the colour the likes no one has ever seen before, Germany is the renewables icon..........
LOL.
A Greenie said that?
Well, excellent.
Assuming we end up chained in Europe as Dave has told them we will be perhaps the parishes of Germany and Poland, which seem to have lots of lovely seams of lignite available for strip mining and similar, can send some to us. After all, it's Europe, right? And so all resources are to be shared equally, right?
And it must be OK 'cos Germany is a green icon that can do no wrong .... or should that be i-Con?
Me ---> I hear you're having problems because wind and solar don't work.
Frau V -----> VE ARE GERMANS, VE VILL MAKE IT VORK
Me ---> Englander in bad books...
...PS..no, you won't luv.The Beebs CC puff bits today:-
Exxon Mobil faces 'change or die' moment on climate
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3633...
This will be interesting.
"Exxon Mobil is also being investigated for potential fraud by withholding information on the role of fossil fuels in driving up temperatures. "
"Over the last year though, a number of journalistic investigations have raised questions about when Exxon's researchers first knew about climate change and how much information they passed on to shareholders and the general public.
Attorneys General from New York, Massachusetts, California and the US Virgin Islands have launched investigations into Exxon to determine if they acted fraudulently."
So how would that statement stand up in a court of law? You would need irrefutable proof that CC science it's correct. Not lots of scientific crap full of maybes, possibles, indicates so on ad finitum
This is of course VERY VERY VERY POLITICAL as you can see reading the story.
And now for the Bull st story. Literally !
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3636...
"Dosing farm animals with antibiotics increases greenhouse gas emissions from cow dung, research suggests. Antibiotics also change the microbes which inhabit dung beetles, although apparently with no adverse effects.
The researchers say it’s proof that antibiotic use on farms has unintended, cascading effects on the environment."
Oh look, the first sentence ends with a 'suggests'. The next says 'no adverse effects'. The next says it's proof. That's the science settled then !
Exxon Mobil faces 'change or die' moment on climate
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3633...
This will be interesting.
"Exxon Mobil is also being investigated for potential fraud by withholding information on the role of fossil fuels in driving up temperatures. "
"Over the last year though, a number of journalistic investigations have raised questions about when Exxon's researchers first knew about climate change and how much information they passed on to shareholders and the general public.
Attorneys General from New York, Massachusetts, California and the US Virgin Islands have launched investigations into Exxon to determine if they acted fraudulently."
So how would that statement stand up in a court of law? You would need irrefutable proof that CC science it's correct. Not lots of scientific crap full of maybes, possibles, indicates so on ad finitum
This is of course VERY VERY VERY POLITICAL as you can see reading the story.
And now for the Bull s
t story. Literally !http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3636...
"Dosing farm animals with antibiotics increases greenhouse gas emissions from cow dung, research suggests. Antibiotics also change the microbes which inhabit dung beetles, although apparently with no adverse effects.
The researchers say it’s proof that antibiotic use on farms has unintended, cascading effects on the environment."
Oh look, the first sentence ends with a 'suggests'. The next says 'no adverse effects'. The next says it's proof. That's the science settled then !
Edited by robinessex on Wednesday 25th May 08:44
robinessex said:
greenhouse gas emissions from cow dung
</snip>Let me get this straight:
1. It's not OK to burn fossil fuels as the CO2 is outside of the human-lifetime carbon cycle - i.e. we're emitting disproportionate volumes of CO2 from long-term stores into the atmosphere.
2. It's OK for humans to turn wood into CO2 by burning it, as it's a relatively short-term carbon cycle with a zero carbon net result as new trees grow.
3. But it's not OK for a cow to turn grass into CO2, despite that also being within an even shorter carbon cycle as new grass grows.
Can Ludo or whoever please explain how this makes sense?
robinessex said:
The Beebs CC puff bits today:-
Exxon Mobil faces 'change or die' moment on climate
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3633...
This will be interesting.
"Exxon Mobil is also being investigated for potential fraud by withholding information on the role of fossil fuels in driving up temperatures. "
"Over the last year though, a number of journalistic investigations have raised questions about when Exxon's researchers first knew about climate change and how much information they passed on to shareholders and the general public.
Attorneys General from New York, Massachusetts, California and the US Virgin Islands have launched investigations into Exxon to determine if they acted fraudulently."
So how would that statement stand up in a court of law? You would need irrefutable proof that CC science it's correct. Not lots of scientific crap full of maybes, possibles, indicates so on ad finitum
This is of course VERY VERY VERY POLITICAL as you can see reading the story.
Is this the one that has rather backfired after the alarmists starting it were counter-subpoenaed for their emails or am I thinking of a different witchhunt? It's so hard to keep up these days.Exxon Mobil faces 'change or die' moment on climate
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3633...
This will be interesting.
"Exxon Mobil is also being investigated for potential fraud by withholding information on the role of fossil fuels in driving up temperatures. "
"Over the last year though, a number of journalistic investigations have raised questions about when Exxon's researchers first knew about climate change and how much information they passed on to shareholders and the general public.
Attorneys General from New York, Massachusetts, California and the US Virgin Islands have launched investigations into Exxon to determine if they acted fraudulently."
So how would that statement stand up in a court of law? You would need irrefutable proof that CC science it's correct. Not lots of scientific crap full of maybes, possibles, indicates so on ad finitum
This is of course VERY VERY VERY POLITICAL as you can see reading the story.
Jacobyte said:
</snip>
Let me get this straight:
1. It's not OK to burn fossil fuels as the CO2 is outside of the human-lifetime carbon cycle - i.e. we're emitting disproportionate volumes of CO2 from long-term stores into the atmosphere.
2. It's OK for humans to turn wood into CO2 by burning it, as it's a relatively short-term carbon cycle with a zero carbon net result as new trees grow.
3. But it's not OK for a cow to turn grass into CO2, despite that also being within an even shorter carbon cycle as new grass grows.
Can Ludo or whoever please explain how this makes sense?
Cows emit methane which is a much worse greenhouse gas than Co2 and methane isn't a plant food so essentially it's new methane being added. I think. I'm sure there will be a boffin along in a moment to explain it better than I.Let me get this straight:
1. It's not OK to burn fossil fuels as the CO2 is outside of the human-lifetime carbon cycle - i.e. we're emitting disproportionate volumes of CO2 from long-term stores into the atmosphere.
2. It's OK for humans to turn wood into CO2 by burning it, as it's a relatively short-term carbon cycle with a zero carbon net result as new trees grow.
3. But it's not OK for a cow to turn grass into CO2, despite that also being within an even shorter carbon cycle as new grass grows.
Can Ludo or whoever please explain how this makes sense?
The boffin can get back to polishing their test tubes.
Like carbon dioxide, methane has never been seen to cause climate change.
There's a lag temperature-to-methane (not vice versa) as there is temperature-to-carbon dioxide, beyond the magnitude of experimental error in the determinations. This puts the order of events the 'wrong way round' for these gases to cause the temperature changes they are associated with.
See for example Monnin et al.
Neither of these greenhouse gases have been seen to cause anything, no matter what their so-called greenhouse potential may be.
Hence the need to maintain a focus on causality to ensure political policy has a rational basis, which at present is awol.
Like carbon dioxide, methane has never been seen to cause climate change.
There's a lag temperature-to-methane (not vice versa) as there is temperature-to-carbon dioxide, beyond the magnitude of experimental error in the determinations. This puts the order of events the 'wrong way round' for these gases to cause the temperature changes they are associated with.
See for example Monnin et al.
Neither of these greenhouse gases have been seen to cause anything, no matter what their so-called greenhouse potential may be.
Hence the need to maintain a focus on causality to ensure political policy has a rational basis, which at present is awol.
jurbie said:
Cows emit methane which is a much worse greenhouse gas than Co2 and methane isn't a plant food so essentially it's new methane being added. I think. I'm sure there will be a boffin along in a moment to explain it better than I.
Ah yes, thanks for that, I knew there's be an explanation somewhere (with any effect on global temperatures notwithstanding). Is there a fart tax yet?
Jacobyte said:
jurbie said:
Cows emit methane which is a much worse greenhouse gas than Co2 and methane isn't a plant food so essentially it's new methane being added. I think. I'm sure there will be a boffin along in a moment to explain it better than I.
Ah yes, thanks for that, I knew there's be an explanation somewhere (with any effect on global temperatures notwithstanding). Is there a fart tax yet?
Should be interesting stopping that.
Has no one yet discussed human CO2 output via breathing?
Clearly all intense activities - athletics for example - should be banned forthwith. We should be praising the concept of obesity for its potential to both sequester "carbon" and reduce human emissions through shallow breathing.
robinessex said:
Carrying on from my previous post re Exxon, it would be nice if they decidied to take a few £1,000,000’s from petty cash, and give the CC advocates a hard time in court. I’m sure with a bit of legal nuance, they could get them to contardict themselves, and spout complete bks.
They contradict themselves anyways..... ks.Snow is a thing of the past....
Global Warming
The models always predicted more snow and colder spells......
hidetheelephants said:
LongQ said:
I read recently that most of the gas cows emit is related to belching rather than farting.
Should be interesting stopping that.
I seem to remember reading that you could genetically engineer grass so that it reduced or eliminated cow burps and farts.Should be interesting stopping that.
Have just seen on the news that the French nuclear workers are going on strike in support of the oil workers, I wonder how the UK will cope if the link is shut down.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff