Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
robinessex said:
THE RAINFALL OVER THE UK IS ABOUT 100 TIMES MORE THAN WE USE. WE DON’T HAVE AND NEVER WILL HAVE A WATER SHORTAGE. SIMPLE STATEMENT OF FACT.
The message given out some years back was something like 'we do not have a water shortage, but we do have a water distribution problem'.I think this was mentioned when the govt was looking to sell off the piplines that supply oil products to ports/airports and refineries, and the question as to why not have a water pipeline too?
Here in the SE we are merrily developing our way to an all too foreseeable shortage of drinking water (if we get some loverly hot summers), to join our lack of proper roads, reliable train services, housing shortage, and proximity to France (that last one is sadly immutable).
Britain's first deep coal mine in years get the go ahead.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/1... we can mine it and sell it just not use it in this mad world.
On the subject of predicted water shortages it should not be forgotten that the last major reservoir was constructed when the water companies were in public ownership, do people not find it strange that successive governments have failed to take a course of action that would mitigate the effects of predicted climate change be they drought or flood ?
Also some reservoirs were filled in for housing, we really need to hold the water companies more accountable.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/1... we can mine it and sell it just not use it in this mad world.
On the subject of predicted water shortages it should not be forgotten that the last major reservoir was constructed when the water companies were in public ownership, do people not find it strange that successive governments have failed to take a course of action that would mitigate the effects of predicted climate change be they drought or flood ?
Also some reservoirs were filled in for housing, we really need to hold the water companies more accountable.
In the hot, drought summer of 1976, it was proposed that the water system of the north of the UK, oversupplied with water, could be linked to the south, only needing 13 miles of large bore pipework to do it. Existing rivers and canals would do the rest. Needless to say, it never happened, and now never will, as the individual water companies won't agree on the share of the cost. This is what happens when you privatise the utility industries, who just want the money, and the consumer can get stuffed. Of the 23 water supply companies in the UK 12 are foreign-owned.
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
THE RAINFALL OVER THE UK IS ABOUT 100 TIMES MORE THAN WE USE. WE DON’T HAVE AND NEVER WILL HAVE A WATER SHORTAGE. SIMPLE STATEMENT OF FACT.
Brilliant insight to a complex problem.Why aren't you running the Environment Agency?
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
THE RAINFALL OVER THE UK IS ABOUT 100 TIMES MORE THAN WE USE. WE DON’T HAVE AND NEVER WILL HAVE A WATER SHORTAGE. SIMPLE STATEMENT OF FACT.
Brilliant insight to a complex problem.Why aren't you running the Environment Agency?
robinessex said:
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
THE RAINFALL OVER THE UK IS ABOUT 100 TIMES MORE THAN WE USE. WE DON’T HAVE AND NEVER WILL HAVE A WATER SHORTAGE. SIMPLE STATEMENT OF FACT.
Brilliant insight to a complex problem.Why aren't you running the Environment Agency?
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
THE RAINFALL OVER THE UK IS ABOUT 100 TIMES MORE THAN WE USE. WE DON’T HAVE AND NEVER WILL HAVE A WATER SHORTAGE. SIMPLE STATEMENT OF FACT.
Brilliant insight to a complex problem.Why aren't you running the Environment Agency?
ks, so no effect on me I'm afraid. I realise you only have a belief, feel sorry for you that you can't think for yourself. Must have been your parents fault.gadgetmac said:
You are a funny one PPP.
Once a month you come into the thread to berate us about population growth as if those of us who know that MMGW is real do not see a problem with unfettered population growth.
I'd say that your argument is more with the flat earthers on here who believe in a completely laissez-faire society like the libertarians.
All of the things you mention need addressing.
Why not start a thread about your pet subject to get clarity on this?
It is a matter of priorities, what would be the point of finally gaining control over climate change, only to look around, and discover that whilst you were doing that, all the rest of what goes towards making the Earth what it is has been comprehensively stuffed, and by the very same `man' that is claimed is causing climate change.Once a month you come into the thread to berate us about population growth as if those of us who know that MMGW is real do not see a problem with unfettered population growth.
I'd say that your argument is more with the flat earthers on here who believe in a completely laissez-faire society like the libertarians.
All of the things you mention need addressing.
Why not start a thread about your pet subject to get clarity on this?
Worrying about the emissions produced by `man' is far too late. Emissions are what happen AFTER man has used an Earth resource, and currently we are taking up Earth resource in greater, not smaller quantities, all to satisfy the growing demands of an increasing number of `man'
If as you believe `man' has messed up the Earths climate now, how much better is it going to be when in just a few years we have added billions more `,man' into the system?
In order to control man made global warming, one FIRST has to control `man' otherwise all you are doing is trying to swim uphill against an ever increasing tide.
David Attenborough said that up until now, man has been controlling the Earth for the sake of man, but that perhaps now man must be controlled for the sake of the Earth.
robinessex said:
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
THE RAINFALL OVER THE UK IS ABOUT 100 TIMES MORE THAN WE USE. WE DON’T HAVE AND NEVER WILL HAVE A WATER SHORTAGE. SIMPLE STATEMENT OF FACT.
Brilliant insight to a complex problem.Why aren't you running the Environment Agency?
Diderot said:
robinessex said:
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
THE RAINFALL OVER THE UK IS ABOUT 100 TIMES MORE THAN WE USE. WE DON’T HAVE AND NEVER WILL HAVE A WATER SHORTAGE. SIMPLE STATEMENT OF FACT.
Brilliant insight to a complex problem.Why aren't you running the Environment Agency?
As we all know (stating the obvious here) Alarmists want their cake and eat it.
So we have Alarmist predictions of droughts and doubts over water supply, yet try building a house and it will need to be raised a metre above surrounding ground because of future climate flood risk assessment.
Anyone remember the classic BBC news article several years ago, where the silly reporter stood in the middle of a parched field in April following weeks with no rain, and declared "taking rainfall for granted in the UK is becoming a thing of the past", sadly going out prime time in living rooms across the country and dressed up as news!
Beautifully, nature obliged, and it rained heavily for the rest of the year!
I'm always amazed though, at how much trust many people still put in silly news stories dressed up as fact. I understand younger people will buy it, but even some older people do, simply because it's dressed up as news.
I'll never forget the one where the reporter, again prime time BBC, stood on a sea wall holding a 2 metre stick declaring "this is where sea level is predicted to be in 50 years"! Moronically beautiful!
deeps said:
I'm always amazed though, at how much trust many people still put in silly news stories dressed up as fact. I understand younger people will buy it, but even some older people do, simply because it's dressed up as news.
Says the guy who proudly admits he didn’t have a clue but got his facts from this thread, wattsupwiththat and TB.Incredible.
You think others are easily led but you ignore science and are completely brainwashed by advocacy blogs and people in a car forum.
Your sad story is a great example of what’s wrong with the internet. Vulnerable people can find “evidence” to back up any theory they want and then their life becomes an echo chamber, even though common sense would show all their sources are clearly completely unreliable and biased.
Diderot said:
robinessex said:
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
THE RAINFALL OVER THE UK IS ABOUT 100 TIMES MORE THAN WE USE. WE DON’T HAVE AND NEVER WILL HAVE A WATER SHORTAGE. SIMPLE STATEMENT OF FACT.
Brilliant insight to a complex problem.Why aren't you running the Environment Agency?
Diderot said:
robinessex said:
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
THE RAINFALL OVER THE UK IS ABOUT 100 TIMES MORE THAN WE USE. WE DON’T HAVE AND NEVER WILL HAVE A WATER SHORTAGE. SIMPLE STATEMENT OF FACT.
Brilliant insight to a complex problem.Why aren't you running the Environment Agency?
Let me demonstrate just how limited you are Diderot...
Got that one scientific Institute that agrees with your stance on climate change yet?
You're the gift that keeps on giving faux-pro.
durbster said:
In other words, it's a list of yet more science organisations that accept AGW is real and not at all what you presented it as.
The question was to find a scientific organisation that supports my view on CAGW. The viewpoint that there is no "C". I have been consistent on both this and the science thread that there is no C in CAGW and that there is no consensus that there is a C. There is no evidence that a C is even possible outside of the fantasy RCP 8.5 nonsense and without the C there is no problem.This may not be how the question was meant but was how I took the question.
Jinx said:
durbster said:
In other words, it's a list of yet more science organisations that accept AGW is real and not at all what you presented it as.
The question was to find a scientific organisation that supports my view on CAGW. The viewpoint that there is no "C". I have been consistent on both this and the science thread that there is no C in CAGW and that there is no consensus that there is a C. There is no evidence that a C is even possible outside of the fantasy RCP 8.5 nonsense and without the C there is no problem.This may not be how the question was meant but was how I took the question.
None are Scientific Research Institutions.
Half of them are "think tanks". The other half are trade association type entities. From what I can see none carry out their own research on Climate Change. Most agree that AGW is real. Half are Petroleum associated organisations.
As for 'C' can I have a link to one of them that says 'C' isn't going to happen?
Are you not embarrassed that you posted such a list?
Jinx said:
durbster said:
In other words, it's a list of yet more science organisations that accept AGW is real and not at all what you presented it as.
The question was to find a scientific organisation that supports my view on CAGW. The viewpoint that there is no "C". I have been consistent on both this and the science thread that there is no C in CAGW and that there is no consensus that there is a C. There is no evidence that a C is even possible outside of the fantasy RCP 8.5 nonsense and without the C there is no problem.This may not be how the question was meant but was how I took the question.
durbster said:
The stance of the organisations you listed appears to be exactly the same as any other science organisation (it is happening and it needs to be addressed) so it's not at all clear what your list was supposed to represent.
QED except your bit in bold (that is rarely listed as something that must happen). If you read carefully the consensus is that there is AGW not anything else - unless they have skin in the game of course..... Look back at the statement you quoted from the list and read it carefully.gadgetmac said:
You're list was wrong on so many levels.
None are Scientific Research Institutions.
Half of them are "think tanks". The other half are trade association type entities. From what I can see none carry out their own research on Climate Change. Most agree that AGW is real. Half are Petroleum associated organisations.
As for 'C' can I have a link to one of them that says 'C' isn't going to happen?
Are you not embarrassed that you posted such a list?
Where do they say "C" is going to happen?None are Scientific Research Institutions.
Half of them are "think tanks". The other half are trade association type entities. From what I can see none carry out their own research on Climate Change. Most agree that AGW is real. Half are Petroleum associated organisations.
As for 'C' can I have a link to one of them that says 'C' isn't going to happen?
Are you not embarrassed that you posted such a list?
Jinx said:
gadgetmac said:
You're list was wrong on so many levels.
None are Scientific Research Institutions.
Half of them are "think tanks". The other half are trade association type entities. From what I can see none carry out their own research on Climate Change. Most agree that AGW is real. Half are Petroleum associated organisations.
As for 'C' can I have a link to one of them that says 'C' isn't going to happen?
Are you not embarrassed that you posted such a list?
Where do they say "C" is going to happen?None are Scientific Research Institutions.
Half of them are "think tanks". The other half are trade association type entities. From what I can see none carry out their own research on Climate Change. Most agree that AGW is real. Half are Petroleum associated organisations.
As for 'C' can I have a link to one of them that says 'C' isn't going to happen?
Are you not embarrassed that you posted such a list?
ks on your premise alone as you said they don't agree with either AGW/CAGW. You also added HTH...In what universe does it help?
And what about the rest of my points?
You flat earthers really do speak out of your bottom orifices on a daily basis.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff