Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
LoonyTunes said:
I agree. It would have to be a minimum of 3 times to make it through the outer layers and possibly one more to help it sink in 
i have a very thick skull, it might take even more than that 
you must have a very obliging employer given the time you spend posting on this thread in work hours, unless of course it is part of your employment 
wc98 said:
LoonyTunes said:
I agree. It would have to be a minimum of 3 times to make it through the outer layers and possibly one more to help it sink in
i have a very thick skull, it might take even more than that you must have a very obliging employer given the time you spend posting on this thread in work hours, unless of course it is part of your employment You on the other hand...?
Vanden Saab said:
While the number of people who believe AGW is not a thing at all is still small
Much like Conservative voters, people won't share such views with pollsters, researchers etc. I would be surprised if 5% were true believers - there's more evidence god exists than a link between CO2 and the natural cycle right now.We've a situation that hasn't really been seen since WW2 with no scientist/institution wanting to go against a 'consensus'. Okay, you're not going to be dragged away and put to death (yet) but why would you put yourself out of a job, rubbish your career and halt funding in your institution? Same in the media. Same in finance and I know someone who helps manage the fund for one of the institutions on 'the list' - they've made a lot of money from this. They go where the money is, not what they believe.
Much of the 'believers' rhetoric here is tainted with a huge methane-full dollop of smugness. It's seems the liberal left bask on being on the 'right side' of such topics as climate change, Brexit and Trump yet don't understand the issues well enough to realise things aren't as simple as consensus or denier, in or out, Trump or Hillary (she's an alien anyway right?). These are all terrible choices and the world gets worse and more divided every time these come up.
Also, don't assume those banging the consensus drum aren't simply naive misguided do-gooders. Their lack of objectivity could be misconstrued as a feeble attempt to continue to benefit from bad science. Given this is a political subject and a car forum, would it be such a stretch to consider these people could also have government pensions? It's not that much of a stretch given other powers do similar activities...
Vanden Saab said:
The problem and worry that many of us have is that the sensible changes put forward to reduce pollution and make the world a nicer place for everybody will be lost in the inevitable rejection of all climate science once enough time has passed to show it up as the fake science it is.
You're sadly right on this. I said something similar earlier. There's just no interest in reducing plastics (without a tax), saving the Amazon (I mean this place has been cut down for decades now), cleaning the oceans, halting the extinction of whole species and reducing the population (realise this is an economic problem for the Western world - especially Japan - but would you rather have an economy or a sustainable clean environment with immigration (yes, that hot potato)) etc. If you're more involved in the industry you'd also realise just how retarded our own government is around environmentally positive projects - stifled and stupidity are words which would sum up much of it. There is no real care for the environment, it's about grandstanding, tax and control.
LoonyTunes said:
Wow, you need inducting immediately fakenews, congratulations!
Deniers who think it's all a global conspiracy
1. Robinessex (who also believes the scientific consensus on AGW is only 6%) Vol 5 page 65
2. Jinx Vol 5 page 67
3. fakenews Vol 5 page 69
And here the spam starts again. Put your money where your mouth is. Show us why your view is superior ?Deniers who think it's all a global conspiracy
1. Robinessex (who also believes the scientific consensus on AGW is only 6%) Vol 5 page 65
2. Jinx Vol 5 page 67
3. fakenews Vol 5 page 69
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Tuesday 16th October 11:09
LoonyTunes said:
Wow, you need inducting immediately fakenews, congratulations!
Deniers who think it's all a global conspiracy
1. Robinessex (who also believes the scientific consensus on AGW is only 6%) Vol 5 page 65
2. Jinx Vol 5 page 67
3. fakenews Vol 5 page 69
I never mentioned the word conspiracy. I just look at all the stuff being done my in the name of saving the planet, and then the money pouring into this. Lovely gravy train for many. I just think all this AGW & CC stuff is bDeniers who think it's all a global conspiracy
1. Robinessex (who also believes the scientific consensus on AGW is only 6%) Vol 5 page 65
2. Jinx Vol 5 page 67
3. fakenews Vol 5 page 69
ks. Don't need much more than common-sense and scepticism. Most people I talk to think it's bks as well funnily enough.Scottish Power to use 100% wind power after Drax sale
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45873785
Scottish Power will become the first major UK energy company to generate all its electricity from wind power instead of coal and gas, after selling its final gas and hydro stations to Drax.
Power company Drax has paid £702m for the rest of Scottish Power's conventional generation business.
Scottish Power plans to invest £5.2bn over four years to more than double its renewables capacity.
Chief executive Keith Anderson said it was a "pivotal shift" for the firm.
"We are leaving carbon generation behind for a renewable future powered by cheaper green energy. We have closed coal, sold gas and built enough wind to power 1.2 million homes," he said.....continues
Oh yeah. So what happens on a freezing cold January night, when high pressure plonks itself over Bonnie Scotland for a few days, and the windy things, er stop!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45873785
Scottish Power will become the first major UK energy company to generate all its electricity from wind power instead of coal and gas, after selling its final gas and hydro stations to Drax.
Power company Drax has paid £702m for the rest of Scottish Power's conventional generation business.
Scottish Power plans to invest £5.2bn over four years to more than double its renewables capacity.
Chief executive Keith Anderson said it was a "pivotal shift" for the firm.
"We are leaving carbon generation behind for a renewable future powered by cheaper green energy. We have closed coal, sold gas and built enough wind to power 1.2 million homes," he said.....continues
Oh yeah. So what happens on a freezing cold January night, when high pressure plonks itself over Bonnie Scotland for a few days, and the windy things, er stop!
robinessex said:
I never mentioned the word conspiracy.
You don't need to actually use the word 'conspiracy' you just have to infer it.I appreciate that using the word 'conspiracy' makes you (or anyone) feel like everybody must be looking at you and thinking "what a loon" but I'm afraid that's the bed you've made yourself when you hint that they are 'all in it together' for either the funding or for fear of upsetting the apple cart in one way or another.
LoonyTunes said:
robinessex said:
I never mentioned the word conspiracy.
You don't need to actually use the word 'conspiracy' you just have to infer it.I appreciate that using the word 'conspiracy' makes you (or anyone) feel like everybody must be looking at you and thinking "what a loon" but I'm afraid that's the bed you've made yourself when you hint that they are 'all in it together' for either the funding or for fear of upsetting the apple cart in one way or another.
ks. Amazing !!LoonyTunes said:
Wow, you need inducting immediately fakenews, congratulations!
Deniers who think it's all a global conspiracy
1. Robinessex (who also believes the scientific consensus on AGW is only 6%) Vol 5 page 65
2. Jinx Vol 5 page 67
3. fakenews Vol 5 page 69
That's a real cop out.Deniers who think it's all a global conspiracy
1. Robinessex (who also believes the scientific consensus on AGW is only 6%) Vol 5 page 65
2. Jinx Vol 5 page 67
3. fakenews Vol 5 page 69
Is there someone on this thread with half a brain who 'believes' who can actually provide a more constructive rebuttal?
I mean could someone describe the IPCC report and help me understand that the data is accurate, well-collected and sampled, statistically relevant and that the models (and researchers) are free from bias and that the conclusions are based upon undeniable certainties?
Could you also explain why we're seeing variances from predicted (or projected) models (AR5 for example) against real world temperatures?
Could you also help me understand why data before (largely) 1850 is excluded and whether such natural 'regular' patterns before this time have been removed from the data to not over-state warming (in fact any factor which would impact results - whether a temperature station is in an area of development, impact of contrails (which are growing), route of polar and sub-tropical jetstreams, sun activity etc)?
And finally, can you provide me with undeniable evidence of a link between man-made CO2 and temperature?
fakenews said:
That's a real cop out.
Is there someone on this thread with half a brain who 'believes' who can actually provide a more constructive rebuttal?
I mean could someone describe the IPCC report and help me understand that the data is accurate, well-collected and sampled, statistically relevant and that the models (and researchers) are free from bias and that the conclusions are based upon undeniable certainties?
Could you also explain why we're seeing variances from predicted (or projected) models (AR5 for example) against real world temperatures?
Could you also help me understand why data before (largely) 1850 is excluded and whether such natural 'regular' patterns before this time have been removed from the data to not over-state warming (in fact any factor which would impact results - whether a temperature station is in an area of development, impact of contrails (which are growing), route of polar and sub-tropical jetstreams, sun activity etc)?
And finally, can you provide me with undeniable evidence of a link between man-made CO2 and temperature?
And here's where you're lack of understanding REALLY shows.Is there someone on this thread with half a brain who 'believes' who can actually provide a more constructive rebuttal?
I mean could someone describe the IPCC report and help me understand that the data is accurate, well-collected and sampled, statistically relevant and that the models (and researchers) are free from bias and that the conclusions are based upon undeniable certainties?
Could you also explain why we're seeing variances from predicted (or projected) models (AR5 for example) against real world temperatures?
Could you also help me understand why data before (largely) 1850 is excluded and whether such natural 'regular' patterns before this time have been removed from the data to not over-state warming (in fact any factor which would impact results - whether a temperature station is in an area of development, impact of contrails (which are growing), route of polar and sub-tropical jetstreams, sun activity etc)?
And finally, can you provide me with undeniable evidence of a link between man-made CO2 and temperature?
This is the politics thread - the Science thread is over there --->
If you can't understand that what hope have you got with AGW.
robinessex said:
I never mentioned the word conspiracy. I just look at all the stuff being done my in the name of saving the planet, and then the money pouring into this. Lovely gravy train for many. I just think all this AGW & CC stuff is bks. Don't need much more than common-sense and scepticism. Most people I talk to think it's bks as well funnily enough.
That’s a conspiracy. ks. Don't need much more than common-sense and scepticism. Most people I talk to think it's bks as well funnily enough.LoonyTunes said:
fakenews said:
That's a real cop out.
Is there someone on this thread with half a brain who 'believes' who can actually provide a more constructive rebuttal?
I mean could someone describe the IPCC report and help me understand that the data is accurate, well-collected and sampled, statistically relevant and that the models (and researchers) are free from bias and that the conclusions are based upon undeniable certainties?
Could you also explain why we're seeing variances from predicted (or projected) models (AR5 for example) against real world temperatures?
Could you also help me understand why data before (largely) 1850 is excluded and whether such natural 'regular' patterns before this time have been removed from the data to not over-state warming (in fact any factor which would impact results - whether a temperature station is in an area of development, impact of contrails (which are growing), route of polar and sub-tropical jetstreams, sun activity etc)?
And finally, can you provide me with undeniable evidence of a link between man-made CO2 and temperature?
And here's where you're lack of understanding REALLY shows.Is there someone on this thread with half a brain who 'believes' who can actually provide a more constructive rebuttal?
I mean could someone describe the IPCC report and help me understand that the data is accurate, well-collected and sampled, statistically relevant and that the models (and researchers) are free from bias and that the conclusions are based upon undeniable certainties?
Could you also explain why we're seeing variances from predicted (or projected) models (AR5 for example) against real world temperatures?
Could you also help me understand why data before (largely) 1850 is excluded and whether such natural 'regular' patterns before this time have been removed from the data to not over-state warming (in fact any factor which would impact results - whether a temperature station is in an area of development, impact of contrails (which are growing), route of polar and sub-tropical jetstreams, sun activity etc)?
And finally, can you provide me with undeniable evidence of a link between man-made CO2 and temperature?
This is the politics thread - the Science thread is over there --->
If you can't understand that what hope have you got with AGW.
LoonyTunes said:
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
I never mentioned the word conspiracy. I just look at all the stuff being done my in the name of saving the planet, and then the money pouring into this. Lovely gravy train for many..
That’s a conspiracy. 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff