Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
El stovey said:
Hosenbugler said:
Trumpy has called the bluff on the climate change scam . As said, nothing about the environment , everything about taxation and distribution of wealth.
The fact that climate change is a made up scam at the behest of the UN is revealed in their own publications , especially this one, authored by the Council of the club of Rome, a Un thinktank.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Global_Rev...
Seems unlikely.The fact that climate change is a made up scam at the behest of the UN is revealed in their own publications , especially this one, authored by the Council of the club of Rome, a Un thinktank.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Global_Rev...
Amazingly, all the nations sign up for an agreement, which you think is a scam.
Then one pulls out and it's Trump. You find the only leader agreeing with your stance is Donald Trump and this somehow validates your position.
If you read the link, it actually quotes the climate change reasoning, its actually referred to in a similar light in other UN related publications , but this is the only one I can find readily, at the moment.
Trumpy is far from being alone in disbeleif regarding the climate change vehicle , just about everyone I know or speak to think its very dubious as well, most seeing it as I do, a crock of nonsense, especially when there is proof of it being so.
Carbon Dioxide is a natural element, its not pollution, if there really is too much of it, plant trees. If anything, pay countries to preserve/expand natural forest, not build stupid windwills that only work sporadically.
Edited by Hosenbugler on Friday 2nd June 09:46
Hosenbugler said:
Aside the tax and distribution of wealth angles, the climate change scam is also a vehicle to help emphasoise the need for global government, viz: the UN itself.
If you read the link, it actually quotes the climate change reasoning, its actually referred to in a similar light in other UN related publications , but this is the only one I can find readily, at the moment.
Trumpy is far from being alone in disbeleif regarding the climate change vehicle , just about everyone I know or speak think its very dubious as well, most seeing as I do, a crock of nonsense, especially when there is proof of it being so.
Carbon Dioxide is a natural element, its not pollution, if there really is too much of it, plant trees. If anything, pay countries to preserve/expand natural forest, not build stupid windwills that only work sporadically.
So countries are signing up to an agreement that reduces their own sovereignty and gives it to the UN? Why would they want to do that?If you read the link, it actually quotes the climate change reasoning, its actually referred to in a similar light in other UN related publications , but this is the only one I can find readily, at the moment.
Trumpy is far from being alone in disbeleif regarding the climate change vehicle , just about everyone I know or speak think its very dubious as well, most seeing as I do, a crock of nonsense, especially when there is proof of it being so.
Carbon Dioxide is a natural element, its not pollution, if there really is too much of it, plant trees. If anything, pay countries to preserve/expand natural forest, not build stupid windwills that only work sporadically.
Are any of your friends experts in this field? Is anyone on this thread an expert in climate science, or even have any relevant expertise at all?
It seems unlikely that all these countries signing up to the Paris agreement are in on some kind of scam or are trying to do something sinister instead. All these scientists and scientific institutions support this agreement.
On the other side there is trump, a few scientists, some bloggers and and your friends.
It seems odd to me, that you would think trump is acting wisely here or that you would decide to agree with his position.
Perhaps the future will show you and trump and a few posters on here to be like Copernicus but it doesn't look likely to me,
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
They're looking after themselves and dont see why they should be footing the bills for others or letting china have a free pass till 2030. It doesn't mean they aren't going to bother improve their emissions and efficiency.
Which is pretty stupid for him - if that is the intention, to limit the emissions under his own hand internally.He had the opportunity to blame others for handcuffs imposed - instead, according to you theory, he is going to still do it (equating to economic harm in his views) and thus be blamed for it in the rust belts of the USA.
Nassacism at its best...."I won't play to someone else's rules, but do it bad under my own rules instead"
Besides, what type of person would deliberately make decisions so that they had the fallback of blaming someone else in their back pocket when it doesn't work? Its a pretty crap attitude to have in my opinion (and it explains a lot of things I experience with dealing with councils...its never the fault of anyone directly involved, there's always some fall guy they can whip out).
I don't think the US are doing to badly anyway, they have large solar and wind installations, some good Hydro and are leading the way with gas. Gas, for my money is about one of the best things we can use for power generation at the present time. Its plentiful, its cheap, the CCGT and OCGT power plants are cost effective, reliable and fast to respond and its the cleanest burning fossil fuel by a country mile. Renewables are not in the position to be providing all the power all of the time.
Oh and this is what people need to see:
from DOI: 10.1111/1758-5899.12295
This is what the climate models say will happen if everyone in the agreement, meets their targets. Hardly worth the USA spunking $3tn on is it? As said, it would only take china or india to produce a little more than targeted to null the USA's savings completely. It is not a good deal for the USA. They have $20tn debt already, they don't need more.
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Friday 2nd June 10:00
chris watton said:
Or in other words, 's
t, what the hell does this mean for my future Green prospects!' 
It seems that Trump has read the agreement and realised it's nothing to do with saving the planet, and more to do with wealth distribution.
There is a HUGE fundamental problem here - Trump does not read.t, what the hell does this mean for my future Green prospects!' It seems that Trump has read the agreement and realised it's nothing to do with saving the planet, and more to do with wealth distribution.
clonmult said:
chris watton said:
Or in other words, 'st, what the hell does this mean for my future Green prospects!'
It seems that Trump has read the agreement and realised it's nothing to do with saving the planet, and more to do with wealth distribution.
There is a HUGE fundamental problem here - Trump does not read.t, what the hell does this mean for my future Green prospects!' It seems that Trump has read the agreement and realised it's nothing to do with saving the planet, and more to do with wealth distribution.
PRTVR said:
Good news from America, it looks like China will be leaning on Europe to maintain their job destroying policies, people should remember that China is not cutting back it's coal power station building programme to save the planet, it has found that the existing power stations are running under capacity , China also hit a record of electricity generation via coal, yep everybody is on side and marching to a new future.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China.
Paddy, do you just ignore things that have been said in the past ?
Part of the Paris Agreement is allowing China to keep increasing its emissions to 2030.... why? They're not a 3rd world country. They're a freaking power house. They should be being lent on by all and sundry to stop. But no one has the knackers to do it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China.
Paddy, do you just ignore things that have been said in the past ?
El stovey said:
Hosenbugler said:
Aside the tax and distribution of wealth angles, the climate change scam is also a vehicle to help emphasoise the need for global government, viz: the UN itself.
If you read the link, it actually quotes the climate change reasoning, its actually referred to in a similar light in other UN related publications , but this is the only one I can find readily, at the moment.
Trumpy is far from being alone in disbeleif regarding the climate change vehicle , just about everyone I know or speak think its very dubious as well, most seeing as I do, a crock of nonsense, especially when there is proof of it being so.
Carbon Dioxide is a natural element, its not pollution, if there really is too much of it, plant trees. If anything, pay countries to preserve/expand natural forest, not build stupid windwills that only work sporadically.
So countries are signing up to an agreement that reduces their own sovereignty and gives it to the UN? Why would they want to do that?If you read the link, it actually quotes the climate change reasoning, its actually referred to in a similar light in other UN related publications , but this is the only one I can find readily, at the moment.
Trumpy is far from being alone in disbeleif regarding the climate change vehicle , just about everyone I know or speak think its very dubious as well, most seeing as I do, a crock of nonsense, especially when there is proof of it being so.
Carbon Dioxide is a natural element, its not pollution, if there really is too much of it, plant trees. If anything, pay countries to preserve/expand natural forest, not build stupid windwills that only work sporadically.
Are any of your friends experts in this field? Is anyone on this thread an expert in climate science, or even have any relevant expertise at all?
It seems unlikely that all these countries signing up to the Paris agreement are in on some kind of scam or are trying to do something sinister instead. All these scientists and scientific institutions support this agreement.
On the other side there is trump, a few scientists, some bloggers and and your friends.
It seems odd to me, that you would think trump is acting wisely here or that you would decide to agree with his position.
Perhaps the future will show you and trump and a few posters on here to be like Copernicus but it doesn't look likely to me,
Thats before we relate to "Climate Scientists" caught red handed fiddling the figures. Nothing so blind as those willfully so.
Its FOX news:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5456566516001/?#sp=show...
But I think its worth hearing what Mr. Bolton has to say (UN ambassador for the US I think? or Ex ... not sure).
This really isn't the end of the world, not even by the climate scientists own science; the temperature reduction would be infinitesimally small. All those on social media shouting that he's killed the world, posting pictures of barren waste lands and maps of Florida underwater really need to step back and think a bit more and just be a bit more realistic.
I like that Elon has thrown his toys out too... he's done very well out of the US government over this climate stuff so it makes sense.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5456566516001/?#sp=show...
But I think its worth hearing what Mr. Bolton has to say (UN ambassador for the US I think? or Ex ... not sure).
This really isn't the end of the world, not even by the climate scientists own science; the temperature reduction would be infinitesimally small. All those on social media shouting that he's killed the world, posting pictures of barren waste lands and maps of Florida underwater really need to step back and think a bit more and just be a bit more realistic.
I like that Elon has thrown his toys out too... he's done very well out of the US government over this climate stuff so it makes sense.
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Friday 2nd June 10:31
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
2010 ? really ?
Again, your sourcing (selective choosing) of data, soundbites, and reporting is so out of date it is laughable to support your own agenda.
Whilst I think we all know your views, skewing the story makes a mockery of the efforts.
Any contrary fact or opinion and you just make up some arbitrary reason why it is inadmissible!Again, your sourcing (selective choosing) of data, soundbites, and reporting is so out of date it is laughable to support your own agenda.
Whilst I think we all know your views, skewing the story makes a mockery of the efforts.
You just expose your laughable blind prejudice and irrationality.
So a quote from a figure at the heart of the scam from only 7 years ago is inadmissible!!!!! Moronic.
Well it was only 3 years ago in the run up to Paris 2014 that then U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres admitted that the aim of the climate scam was to destroy capitalism
The true aim was:-
"to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution."
The whole climate scam is, and always was, about finding a pretext to install by stealth a supra-national socialist governance system presided over by an un-elected self-appointed self-serving elite.
There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that the global climate has already been adversely affected by CO2 release - quite the reverse, if anything, slight recent warming (whatever the cause) has made the climate more benign.
In more recent times high profile figures have also lamented our 'addiction' to 'cheap' energy (yer, that 'nasty' thing that alleviates poverty, starvation, disease) and not having a political system like China where they can just impose instantly whatever policies they want and imprison/execute dissenters!
These people, not CO2, are the real danger to people.
Hosenbugler said:
You can willfully ignore the facts and obfuscate as much as you like, but its a fact, its a tax/distributio governmental vehicle , The council of the Club of Rome who came up with the idea say so, specifically, in their UN sponsored publication I linked too.
Thats before we relate to "Climate Scientists" caught red handed fiddling the figures. Nothing so blind as those willfully so.
I'd love to read facts. I don't know what the facts are so I tend to (blindly) look towards those presented by actual scientists and scientific institutions. Thats before we relate to "Climate Scientists" caught red handed fiddling the figures. Nothing so blind as those willfully so.
If I wanted to read about the origins of the universe and NASA published an article about it, I'd tend to place more importance on it than a blog by someone or by posters in here.
If those institutions were tending to be saying the same thing and most countries signed up to an agreement related to that position I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable being on the other side with apparently no renown scientific institutions and very few scientists and just Donald Trump.
Do you feel you have actual scientific data backing up your position or is your position more about politics and being against stuff that sounds a bit liberal like the environment or the UN.
If you're a true neutral and looking for facts, you'd be unlikely to find much that looks like authoritative data to back your view up. Apologies if that looks like mindlessly following false idols or being a believer but it's hard to find data or argument from your side from respected scientific bodies or institutions.
El stovey said:
Hosenbugler said:
You can willfully ignore the facts and obfuscate as much as you like, but its a fact, its a tax/distributio governmental vehicle , The council of the Club of Rome who came up with the idea say so, specifically, in their UN sponsored publication I linked too.
Thats before we relate to "Climate Scientists" caught red handed fiddling the figures. Nothing so blind as those willfully so.
I'd love to read facts. I don't know what the facts are so I tend to (blindly) look towards those presented by actual scientists and scientific institutions. Thats before we relate to "Climate Scientists" caught red handed fiddling the figures. Nothing so blind as those willfully so.
If I wanted to read about the origins of the universe and NASA published an article about it, I'd tend to place more importance on it than a blog by someone or by posters in here.
If those institutions were tending to be saying the same thing and most countries signed up to an agreement related to that position I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable being on the other side with apparently no renown scientific institutions and very few scientists and just Donald Trump.
Do you feel you have actual scientific data backing up your position or is your position more about politics and being against stuff that sounds a bit liberal like the environment or the UN.
If you're a true neutral and looking for facts, you'd be unlikely to find much that looks like authoritative data to back your view up. Apologies if that looks like mindlessly following false idols or being a believer but it's hard to find data or argument from your side from respected scientific bodies or institutions.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
PRTVR said:
Good news from America, it looks like China will be leaning on Europe to maintain their job destroying policies, people should remember that China is not cutting back it's coal power station building programme to save the planet, it has found that the existing power stations are running under capacity , China also hit a record of electricity generation via coal, yep everybody is on side and marching to a new future.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China.
Paddy, do you just ignore things that have been said in the past ?
As for the bold - no, of course not. It is all valid as part of the research.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China.
Paddy, do you just ignore things that have been said in the past ?
However, trotting out old (historical) data, statements and information from the past under the intentional pretence that it is currently valid (in what I think everyone on this thread can see as an evolving subject this last decade from a scientific and political aspect) is misdirection, or laziness.
TurboB put that image up because it agrees (agreed back then ??) with his views.
robinessex said:
El stovey said:
Hosenbugler said:
You can willfully ignore the facts and obfuscate as much as you like, but its a fact, its a tax/distributio governmental vehicle , The council of the Club of Rome who came up with the idea say so, specifically, in their UN sponsored publication I linked too.
Thats before we relate to "Climate Scientists" caught red handed fiddling the figures. Nothing so blind as those willfully so.
I'd love to read facts. I don't know what the facts are so I tend to (blindly) look towards those presented by actual scientists and scientific institutions. Thats before we relate to "Climate Scientists" caught red handed fiddling the figures. Nothing so blind as those willfully so.
If I wanted to read about the origins of the universe and NASA published an article about it, I'd tend to place more importance on it than a blog by someone or by posters in here.
If those institutions were tending to be saying the same thing and most countries signed up to an agreement related to that position I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable being on the other side with apparently no renown scientific institutions and very few scientists and just Donald Trump.
Do you feel you have actual scientific data backing up your position or is your position more about politics and being against stuff that sounds a bit liberal like the environment or the UN.
If you're a true neutral and looking for facts, you'd be unlikely to find much that looks like authoritative data to back your view up. Apologies if that looks like mindlessly following false idols or being a believer but it's hard to find data or argument from your side from respected scientific bodies or institutions.
Beeb's Environment correspondent Matt McGrath is desperation mode.
The world's not laughing, Donald, it's crying
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4012...
I notice a lack of readers comments on this subjest. The Beeb afraid of them ?
The world's not laughing, Donald, it's crying
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4012...
I notice a lack of readers comments on this subjest. The Beeb afraid of them ?
robinessex said:
It's not crap. Plenty of information has been pasted here to challenge CC. " Guardians of the Fallacy" ruins your credibility.
Credibility..... On this thread don't make me laugh. I thought it was quite witty but if you only understood half of it then what can I say.How did you edit your reply without showing that you edited it?
DapperDanMan said:
Credibility..... On this thread don't make me laugh. I thought it was quite witty but if you only understood half of it then what can I say.
How did you edit your reply without showing that you edited it?
It's a quirk of these forums - if you edit within a certain time it doesn't show as an edit. Nothing fishing going on!How did you edit your reply without showing that you edited it?
dickymint said:
DapperDanMan said:
Credibility..... On this thread don't make me laugh. I thought it was quite witty but if you only understood half of it then what can I say.
How did you edit your reply without showing that you edited it?
It's a quirk of these forums - if you edit within a certain time it doesn't show as an edit. Nothing fishing going on!How did you edit your reply without showing that you edited it?
robinessex said:
Beeb's Environment correspondent Matt McGrath is desperation mode.
The world's not laughing, Donald, it's crying
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4012...
I notice a lack of readers comments on this subjest. The Beeb afraid of them ?
Now here's some seriously biased headlines - anti Trump too - but as it's from Murdoch's soon-to-be mouthpiece Sky News I'm sure it will cause an internal meltdown to some.The world's not laughing, Donald, it's crying
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4012...
I notice a lack of readers comments on this subjest. The Beeb afraid of them ?
"A Few Silver Linings To Trump's Toxic Cloud"
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff