Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
kerplunk said:
Tax is a tool to change behaviour without using regulation. Should we have banned banned incandescent lightbulbs or just taxed them heavily? But I can see you aren't going to cross the theshold and accept any need for either so there's no point continuing.
Why did we need to do either? CFL were a really crap alternative to incandescent from both a lighting and environmental perspective, and free market forces have seen them relegated to the dustbin of history by LEDs. No banning or taxing required.An excellent article, well worth a read while the pubs are still forced shut...
The Absurdity of Climate Hysteria.
Posted on February 24, 2021 by erl happ
The author is a grape farmer and wine maker, and a close observer of climate.
The Absurdity of Climate Hysteria.
Posted on February 24, 2021 by erl happ
The author is a grape farmer and wine maker, and a close observer of climate.
article said:
We are witnessing the decline of Western Civilization, hamstrung by ideological commitment to the “Green New Deal’, ‘The Great Reset’ and ‘zero carbon by 2050’, all recipes for economic and social stagnation. We are being ‘led up the garden path’ by those who should know better. This is like the Dardanelles all over again. The hubris that is exhibited by the leaders of the ‘free world’ was also evident prior to the debacle of World War 1. John Kerry, the White House’s special envoy on climate, warned last week that the U.S. has less than a decade left to avoid the worst of a climate catastrophe instancing the cooling affecting Texas. Cooling, warming, its all the same to John. Its incredible that we have got to the stage that people who mouth this nonsense are given credence by the daily press.
https://reality348.wordpress.com/2021/02/24/the-ab...deeps said:
An excellent article, well worth a read while the pubs are still forced shut...
The Absurdity of Climate Hysteria.
Posted on February 24, 2021 by erl happ
The author is a grape farmer and wine maker, and a close observer of climate.
How many politicians will read that?The Absurdity of Climate Hysteria.
Posted on February 24, 2021 by erl happ
The author is a grape farmer and wine maker, and a close observer of climate.
article said:
We are witnessing the decline of Western Civilization, hamstrung by ideological commitment to the “Green New Deal’, ‘The Great Reset’ and ‘zero carbon by 2050’, all recipes for economic and social stagnation. We are being ‘led up the garden path’ by those who should know better. This is like the Dardanelles all over again. The hubris that is exhibited by the leaders of the ‘free world’ was also evident prior to the debacle of World War 1. John Kerry, the White House’s special envoy on climate, warned last week that the U.S. has less than a decade left to avoid the worst of a climate catastrophe instancing the cooling affecting Texas. Cooling, warming, its all the same to John. Its incredible that we have got to the stage that people who mouth this nonsense are given credence by the daily press.
https://reality348.wordpress.com/2021/02/24/the-ab...robinessex said:
How many politicians will read that?
They’re probably sensibly focusing more on reports from scientists and scientific institutions. If you were a decision maker would you be getting your facts from random Wordpress articles and YouTube instead of the considered collective judgement and position of the scientific community?
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
How many politicians will read that?
They’re probably sensibly focusing more on reports from scientists and scientific institutions. If you were a decision maker would you be getting your facts from random Wordpress articles and YouTube instead of the considered collective judgement and position of the scientific community?
robinessex said:
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
How many politicians will read that?
They’re probably sensibly focusing more on reports from scientists and scientific institutions. If you were a decision maker would you be getting your facts from random Wordpress articles and YouTube instead of the considered collective judgement and position of the scientific community?
Are you honestly asking if politicians are getting their information that they base policy and decisions on from articles like that?
Came across the ‘Great Frost’ of 1709 yesterday. Imagine if that happened recently, it would be a climate emergency! and more taxes would prevent it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Frost_of_1709
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Frost_of_1709
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
How many politicians will read that?
They’re probably sensibly focusing more on reports from scientists and scientific institutions. If you were a decision maker would you be getting your facts from random Wordpress articles and YouTube instead of the considered collective judgement and position of the scientific community?
Are you honestly asking if politicians are getting their information that they base policy and decisions on from articles like that?
robinessex said:
I give, up, I've my own brick wall to bang my head on here at home.
Ok to answer your question.I don’t think any politicians will be reading that article.
I’ve already explained why twice now.
But just incase you’re not sure what my point is. The reason that politicians won’t be reading that article is because that’s not the kind of place or kind of article that decision makers use to get their information from.
robinessex said:
Climate change: Carbon emission promises 'put Earth on red alert'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-562...
The world will heat by more than 1.5C unless nations produce tougher policies, a global stocktake has confirmed.
Governments must halve emissions by 2030 if they intend the Earth to stay within the 1.5C “safe” threshold.
But the latest set of national policies submitted to the UN shows emissions will merely be stabilised by 2030.
The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, called it a red alert for our planet. ....continues
Wow, red alert. Must be dam serious then, I'm waiting for the sirens to go off. Anyway, it's 'seems' as if we, the UK that is, are doing just about everything possible re reducing CO2, ( we're permitting a new coal mine to be dug in the face of scientific and international criticism, also building a high-speed rail link that won't be carbon neutral until the back end of the century, and have a £27bn roads programme, still a bit naughty then), while a huge majority of the rest of the planet are er, thinking about it. So that's all ok then.
As we can also see, the BBC has adopted The Guardian's hyperbolic editorial mandate. Global heating https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-562...
The world will heat by more than 1.5C unless nations produce tougher policies, a global stocktake has confirmed.
Governments must halve emissions by 2030 if they intend the Earth to stay within the 1.5C “safe” threshold.
But the latest set of national policies submitted to the UN shows emissions will merely be stabilised by 2030.
The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, called it a red alert for our planet. ....continues
Wow, red alert. Must be dam serious then, I'm waiting for the sirens to go off. Anyway, it's 'seems' as if we, the UK that is, are doing just about everything possible re reducing CO2, ( we're permitting a new coal mine to be dug in the face of scientific and international criticism, also building a high-speed rail link that won't be carbon neutral until the back end of the century, and have a £27bn roads programme, still a bit naughty then), while a huge majority of the rest of the planet are er, thinking about it. So that's all ok then.
Edited by robinessex on Friday 26th February 17:22
mko9 said:
kerplunk said:
Tax is a tool to change behaviour without using regulation. Should we have banned banned incandescent lightbulbs or just taxed them heavily? But I can see you aren't going to cross the theshold and accept any need for either so there's no point continuing.
Why did we need to do either? CFL were a really crap alternative to incandescent from both a lighting and environmental perspective, and free market forces have seen them relegated to the dustbin of history by LEDs. No banning or taxing required.
robinessex said:
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
How many politicians will read that?
They’re probably sensibly focusing more on reports from scientists and scientific institutions. If you were a decision maker would you be getting your facts from random Wordpress articles and YouTube instead of the considered collective judgement and position of the scientific community?
a) Published, peer-reviewed science recognised by scientific bodies
b) A wine grower on the internet (an industry that could benefit from global warming)
deeps said:
An excellent article, well worth a read while the pubs are still forced shut...
The Absurdity of Climate Hysteria.
Posted on February 24, 2021 by erl happ
The author is a grape farmer and wine maker, and a close observer of climate.
Another fun quiz - which of these statements could be described as "hysterical":The Absurdity of Climate Hysteria.
Posted on February 24, 2021 by erl happ
The author is a grape farmer and wine maker, and a close observer of climate.
article said:
We are witnessing the decline of Western Civilization, hamstrung by ideological commitment to the “Green New Deal’, ‘The Great Reset’ and ‘zero carbon by 2050’, all recipes for economic and social stagnation. We are being ‘led up the garden path’ by those who should know better. This is like the Dardanelles all over again. The hubris that is exhibited by the leaders of the ‘free world’ was also evident prior to the debacle of World War 1. John Kerry, the White House’s special envoy on climate, warned last week that the U.S. has less than a decade left to avoid the worst of a climate catastrophe instancing the cooling affecting Texas. Cooling, warming, its all the same to John. Its incredible that we have got to the stage that people who mouth this nonsense are given credence by the daily press.
https://reality348.wordpress.com/2021/02/24/the-ab...a) "We need to dramatically reduce emissions to mitigate the effects of climate change"
b) "We are witnessing the decline of Western Civilization"
mko9 said:
kerplunk said:
Tax is a tool to change behaviour without using regulation. Should we have banned banned incandescent lightbulbs or just taxed them heavily? But I can see you aren't going to cross the theshold and accept any need for either so there's no point continuing.
Why did we need to do either? CFL were a really crap alternative to incandescent from both a lighting and environmental perspective, and free market forces have seen them relegated to the dustbin of history by LEDs. No banning or taxing required.I would still buy incandescents if they were still available (eg loft lights), less likely to if they were heavily taxed of course, but at least I would have the choice.
durbster said:
deeps said:
An excellent article, well worth a read while the pubs are still forced shut...
The Absurdity of Climate Hysteria.
Posted on February 24, 2021 by erl happ
The author is a grape farmer and wine maker, and a close observer of climate.
Another fun quiz - which of these statements could be described as "hysterical":The Absurdity of Climate Hysteria.
Posted on February 24, 2021 by erl happ
The author is a grape farmer and wine maker, and a close observer of climate.
article said:
We are witnessing the decline of Western Civilization, hamstrung by ideological commitment to the “Green New Deal’, ‘The Great Reset’ and ‘zero carbon by 2050’, all recipes for economic and social stagnation. We are being ‘led up the garden path’ by those who should know better. This is like the Dardanelles all over again. The hubris that is exhibited by the leaders of the ‘free world’ was also evident prior to the debacle of World War 1. John Kerry, the White House’s special envoy on climate, warned last week that the U.S. has less than a decade left to avoid the worst of a climate catastrophe instancing the cooling affecting Texas. Cooling, warming, its all the same to John. Its incredible that we have got to the stage that people who mouth this nonsense are given credence by the daily press.
https://reality348.wordpress.com/2021/02/24/the-ab...a) "We need to dramatically reduce emissions to mitigate the effects of climate change"
b) "We are witnessing the decline of Western Civilization"
The global population (where all the emissions are supposed to be coming from) is STILL growing at up to 342 thousand net new humans per DAY.
Don't forget that! We cannot have the enormous emissions which are affecting the climate `without' the contributions of the enormous global population, now can we?
kerplunk said:
mko9 said:
kerplunk said:
Tax is a tool to change behaviour without using regulation. Should we have banned banned incandescent lightbulbs or just taxed them heavily? But I can see you aren't going to cross the theshold and accept any need for either so there's no point continuing.
Why did we need to do either? CFL were a really crap alternative to incandescent from both a lighting and environmental perspective, and free market forces have seen them relegated to the dustbin of history by LEDs. No banning or taxing required.I would still buy incandescents if they were still available (eg loft lights), less likely to if they were heavily taxed of course, but at least I would have the choice.
Fill yer boots
robinessex said:
durbster said:
A wine grower on the internet (an industry that could benefit from global warming
So it should be an elementary exercise it refuting what he wrote then. We await your efforts.Regading scientists:-
A scientist
If a beard were all, a goat might preach.
Does this swerve mean you do know the answer to your question about why politicians aren't putting the opinion of a wine grower on the internet over scientific institutions on matters of science?
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
How many politicians will read that?
They’re probably sensibly focusing more on reports from scientists and scientific institutions. If you were a decision maker would you be getting your facts from random Wordpress articles and YouTube instead of the considered collective judgement and position of the scientific community?
Are you honestly asking if politicians are getting their information that they base policy and decisions on from articles like that?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff