Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
This is the result of spending £Billions on 'green' issues, carbon trading schemes, permits and taxation.
The result isn't surprising as CO2 is mostly naturally occurring, and no amount of virtue signaling political schemes will alter that fact.
It has to be acknowledged that hoodwinking many people into believing that natural CO2 creation is a constant, while human contribution is the only variable, is very impressive.
The result isn't surprising as CO2 is mostly naturally occurring, and no amount of virtue signaling political schemes will alter that fact.
It has to be acknowledged that hoodwinking many people into believing that natural CO2 creation is a constant, while human contribution is the only variable, is very impressive.
deeps said:
Sensei Rob said:
It's much ado about nothing, really. All scaremongering to raise taxes.
Nobody is denying climate change (aka global warming). The issue is whether it's humans to blame or whether it's natural. Bear in mind, early Earth had much higher CO2 levels and still gave rise to life proves that we can't kill the Earth.
People ought to look into the Medieval warm period as a case study for climate change. Spoiler alert: it was great. It also happened before the Industrial revolution, meaning it's a total headscratcher for the likes of Greta who skipped too many days at school. Perhaps it's all caused by solar activity, after all.
CO2 is literally plant food. So, we can expect plants to grow bigger and bear more fruit. Deforestation is an issue that needs to be sorted out, for sure. Furthermore, if that's still not good enough, we now have the technology to literally extract CO2 from the sky and convert it into fuel.
Spot on Rob.Nobody is denying climate change (aka global warming). The issue is whether it's humans to blame or whether it's natural. Bear in mind, early Earth had much higher CO2 levels and still gave rise to life proves that we can't kill the Earth.
People ought to look into the Medieval warm period as a case study for climate change. Spoiler alert: it was great. It also happened before the Industrial revolution, meaning it's a total headscratcher for the likes of Greta who skipped too many days at school. Perhaps it's all caused by solar activity, after all.
CO2 is literally plant food. So, we can expect plants to grow bigger and bear more fruit. Deforestation is an issue that needs to be sorted out, for sure. Furthermore, if that's still not good enough, we now have the technology to literally extract CO2 from the sky and convert it into fuel.
You will have noticed that most of the Warmists here basically stick their fingers in their ears, swipe at you with sarcasm and insults, then hide behind '98% of scientists' and 'the science is settled' type comments.
I think they've bored most participants of the thread into leaving, maybe that's their intention.
Take them up on it Sensai Rob try it and I guarantee you that "the lone ranger" in there will rubbish anything you say science or not. The next phase you'll probably get thrown at you is "the consensus" and "why don't you publish a paper in a journal" rather than "posting in some backwater car forum"?
deeps said:
Sensei Rob said:
durbster said:
Sensei Rob said:
kerplunk said:
Sensei Rob said:
kerplunk said:
The MWP grew out of a very euro-centric view of the world. Looks like europe is warmer now, if not warmer than MWP. The concern isn't about being as warm as the MWP. It's about the potential for much more warming occuring in a very short space of time ie temperatures that would far exceed anything seen in the holocene arriving in what is in geological timeframes like the flick of a switch.
Great. So what caused it?Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 3rd March 10:02
And how about the rest of my points you were going to debunk:
1. Early Earth had higher CO2 levels.
2. The Medieval Warm period was not caused by humans, rather it occurred naturally.
3. CO2 makes plants grow bigger
4. We know have the technology to remove CO2 from the air and convert it back into fuel.
We don't have adequate obs to explain every regional ripple in the past, but the general picture of the holcene is a temperature maximum early on in the period foillowed by a slow cooling - a pattern seen in previous interglacial periods too and likely milancovitch driven (ie orbital cycles)
So you admit, humans have nothing to do with this.
Seriously, your arguments are just bullet points copied and pasted from page 1 of the denier handbook, and have all been explained here countless times. These cards you are holding are not as good as you imagine.
Nobody disputes that warming can and has occurred naturally in the past. It's a total non-sequitur to think that it means the current warming is not caused by emitting loads of CO2.
We know the current warming is caused by human activity because a) we are emitting loads of greenhouse gases and b) the laws of physics tell us that's what will happen. If you want to run with this argument, you're going to have to explain why our understanding of physics is wrong.
Has it ever occurred to you to even try to dismantle those 4 points?
Here you are:
1. Early Earth had higher CO2 levels.
2. The Medieval Warm period was not caused by humans, rather it occurred naturally.
3. CO2 makes plants grow bigger
4. We know have the technology to remove CO2 from the air and convert it back into fuel.
Debunk them.
In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm. We are currently CO2 impoverished, hence why farmers pump CO2 into their greenhouses to help grow crops. Optimum CO2 levels are said to be around 1200 - 1500ppm. Below 150ppm and we will see major extinction events. At just over 410 ppm currently, we are on the low side of healthy.
Also, Earth entered an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations were around 4400 ppm. According to climate hysteria theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot not freezing.
Shockingly, to the simple ''more CO2 must equal higher temperatures, it's physics" brigade, it is clear that many other factors besides CO2 influence temperature, and the actual benefits of increasing CO2 are completely overlooked.
Besides photosynthesis etc, without a non-condensing GHG like CO2 in the atmosphere, the atmosphere would be too cold to hold much water vapour and there would be virtually no greenhouse effect. Earth would be a snowball. My understanding is that there's some uncertainty as to whether a band of liquid water around the equator would remain or be completely frozen but that's just a detail
CO2 eh - even more important than you thought.
I doubt you'll be using that line much though because it involves talking about the greenhoiuse effect - danger danger!
kerplunk said:
You understate the importance of CO2 to life on earth.
Besides photosynthesis etc, without a non-condensing GHG like CO2 in the atmosphere, the atmosphere would be too cold to hold much water vapour and there would be virtually no greenhouse effect. Earth would be a snowball. My understanding is that there's some uncertainty as to whether a band of liquid water around the equator would remain or be completely frozen but that's just a detail
CO2 eh - even more important than you thought.
I doubt you'll be using that line much though because it involves talking about the greenhoiuse effect - danger danger!
Waits for El Stovey to tick you off and point you in the direction (with a link even) of the Science thread Besides photosynthesis etc, without a non-condensing GHG like CO2 in the atmosphere, the atmosphere would be too cold to hold much water vapour and there would be virtually no greenhouse effect. Earth would be a snowball. My understanding is that there's some uncertainty as to whether a band of liquid water around the equator would remain or be completely frozen but that's just a detail
CO2 eh - even more important than you thought.
I doubt you'll be using that line much though because it involves talking about the greenhoiuse effect - danger danger!
dickymint said:
Some have openly stated this thread should be shut but for some strange reason they can't resist posting, One of their favourites we saw earlier "the science thread is over there" yet when it suits them they spout science!
Take them up on it Sensai Rob try it and I guarantee you that "the lone ranger" in there will rubbish anything you say science or not. The next phase you'll probably get thrown at you is "the consensus" and "why don't you publish a paper in a journal" rather than "posting in some backwater car forum"?
And you just bellyache Take them up on it Sensai Rob try it and I guarantee you that "the lone ranger" in there will rubbish anything you say science or not. The next phase you'll probably get thrown at you is "the consensus" and "why don't you publish a paper in a journal" rather than "posting in some backwater car forum"?
dickymint said:
kerplunk said:
You understate the importance of CO2 to life on earth.
Besides photosynthesis etc, without a non-condensing GHG like CO2 in the atmosphere, the atmosphere would be too cold to hold much water vapour and there would be virtually no greenhouse effect. Earth would be a snowball. My understanding is that there's some uncertainty as to whether a band of liquid water around the equator would remain or be completely frozen but that's just a detail
CO2 eh - even more important than you thought.
I doubt you'll be using that line much though because it involves talking about the greenhoiuse effect - danger danger!
Waits for El Stovey to tick you off and point you in the direction (with a link even) of the Science thread Besides photosynthesis etc, without a non-condensing GHG like CO2 in the atmosphere, the atmosphere would be too cold to hold much water vapour and there would be virtually no greenhouse effect. Earth would be a snowball. My understanding is that there's some uncertainty as to whether a band of liquid water around the equator would remain or be completely frozen but that's just a detail
CO2 eh - even more important than you thought.
I doubt you'll be using that line much though because it involves talking about the greenhoiuse effect - danger danger!
confused
deeps said:
Spot on Rob.
You will have noticed that most of the Warmists here basically stick their fingers in their ears, swipe at you with sarcasm and insults, then hide behind '98% of scientists' and 'the science is settled' type comments.
I think they've bored most participants of the thread into leaving, maybe that's their intention.
That's not true. You are either met with mockery or you have your argument torn apart using facts and evidence so comprehensively that you have absolutely no recourse, and stick your head in the sand until you're ready to come back with the next item plucked from the denier blog.You will have noticed that most of the Warmists here basically stick their fingers in their ears, swipe at you with sarcasm and insults, then hide behind '98% of scientists' and 'the science is settled' type comments.
I think they've bored most participants of the thread into leaving, maybe that's their intention.
kerplunk said:
dickymint said:
kerplunk said:
You understate the importance of CO2 to life on earth.
Besides photosynthesis etc, without a non-condensing GHG like CO2 in the atmosphere, the atmosphere would be too cold to hold much water vapour and there would be virtually no greenhouse effect. Earth would be a snowball. My understanding is that there's some uncertainty as to whether a band of liquid water around the equator would remain or be completely frozen but that's just a detail
CO2 eh - even more important than you thought.
I doubt you'll be using that line much though because it involves talking about the greenhoiuse effect - danger danger!
Waits for El Stovey to tick you off and point you in the direction (with a link even) of the Science thread Besides photosynthesis etc, without a non-condensing GHG like CO2 in the atmosphere, the atmosphere would be too cold to hold much water vapour and there would be virtually no greenhouse effect. Earth would be a snowball. My understanding is that there's some uncertainty as to whether a band of liquid water around the equator would remain or be completely frozen but that's just a detail
CO2 eh - even more important than you thought.
I doubt you'll be using that line much though because it involves talking about the greenhoiuse effect - danger danger!
confused
dickymint said:
Who's "we" I only mentioned one? Personally I don't mind mixing Politics with Science here at all. What I do mind is the way it keeps getting used as an excuse to shut down discussion. I mention it only to point out the hypocrisy.
you don’t mix politics and science at all.All you do is constantly whinge amd try and get people banned.
Luckily most here are wise to it now.
One more thing I'd like to add is that the very fact that scientifically literate people can argue about it proves that the science isn't settled. Otherwise, there would be noting to debate.
Think about it...nobody debates whether gravity exists or whether our mitochondrial DNA comes from our mothers. It's because they're established laws.
When you have money at stake, you can buy researchers into producing biased reports. There are as many scientific journal articles debunking anthropogenic global warming as there are that supports it.
Meanwhile, life on Earth is fine and dandy. And that's the rub. If it wasn't for a people screaming that the sky is falling, we'd be oblivious to the "problem".
At the end of the day, I'm all for doing my bit for the environment. Pollution and Deforestation are massive issues we need to tackle. However, I can't just sit by and listen to people talk nonsense. The climate changes because of solar activity - that explains the Earth coming out of the Ice age. It's arrogant to think we have any significant impact at all.
The points I raised earlier can't be debunked. It's funny how the warmists conveniently dismiss them as being "copy pasted" from some handbook, whilst they pretend they have better things to do than type out a response. Even if they were copy pasted, formulate a proper response.
PS
It's interesting how they changed the name from global warming to climate change. It's because people realised that we still have cold winters.
Think about it...nobody debates whether gravity exists or whether our mitochondrial DNA comes from our mothers. It's because they're established laws.
When you have money at stake, you can buy researchers into producing biased reports. There are as many scientific journal articles debunking anthropogenic global warming as there are that supports it.
Meanwhile, life on Earth is fine and dandy. And that's the rub. If it wasn't for a people screaming that the sky is falling, we'd be oblivious to the "problem".
At the end of the day, I'm all for doing my bit for the environment. Pollution and Deforestation are massive issues we need to tackle. However, I can't just sit by and listen to people talk nonsense. The climate changes because of solar activity - that explains the Earth coming out of the Ice age. It's arrogant to think we have any significant impact at all.
The points I raised earlier can't be debunked. It's funny how the warmists conveniently dismiss them as being "copy pasted" from some handbook, whilst they pretend they have better things to do than type out a response. Even if they were copy pasted, formulate a proper response.
PS
It's interesting how they changed the name from global warming to climate change. It's because people realised that we still have cold winters.
Sensei Rob said:
It's funny how the warmists conveniently dismiss them as being "copy pasted" from some handbook, whilst they pretend they have better things to do than type out a response. Even if they were copy pasted, formulate a proper response.
PS
It's interesting how they changed the name from global warming to climate change. It's because people realised that we still have cold winters.
Hahahaha - complains about being dismissed as a parrot and then trots out an off the shelf canard about how 'they' changed the name from global warming to climate change. PricelessPS
It's interesting how they changed the name from global warming to climate change. It's because people realised that we still have cold winters.
Makes grandiose statements about unsettled science and then makes an emphatic statement about solar activity. Priceless
I can see you coming a mile away, and your name is bozo the clown.
Sensei Rob said:
Meanwhile, life on Earth is fine and dandy. And that's the rub. If it wasn't for a people screaming that the sky is falling, we'd be oblivious to the "problem".
Absolutely. The problem for realists is that 'climate change' has been drip fed into our lives for so many years that many people now actually believe there is a climate problem that only our great politicians can fix. This problem is always about 10 years away.Of course, as the continuous failed declarations of '10 years to save the planet' mount up, the writing will be on the wall for 'climate change' if it isn't already.
Another problem is that certain sectors of society believe in 'climate change' as they would any other religion. No amount of failed predictions will ever diminish their faith. They are few, but they do have a disproportionately large nuisance factor on society i.e. Extinction Rebellion activities.
A truly staggering period in human history though!
kerplunk said:
Sensei Rob said:
It's funny how the warmists conveniently dismiss them as being "copy pasted" from some handbook, whilst they pretend they have better things to do than type out a response. Even if they were copy pasted, formulate a proper response.
PS
It's interesting how they changed the name from global warming to climate change. It's because people realised that we still have cold winters.
Hahahaha - complains about being dismissed as a parrot and then trots out an off the shelf canard about how 'they' changed the name from global warming to climate change. PricelessPS
It's interesting how they changed the name from global warming to climate change. It's because people realised that we still have cold winters.
Makes grandiose statements about unsettled science and then makes an emphatic statement about solar activity. Priceless
I can see you coming a mile away, and your name is bozo the clown.
What do you think caused the Medieval Warm Period and the Earth to come out of the Ice age? You think that was caused by humans?!
Budget 2021: No 'green revolution' from Sunak
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56270528
Critics have said Budget measures did not go far enough to address the scale of the challenge of climate change.
Chancellor Rishi Sunak announced a change to the Bank of England's remit as part of green measures in the Budget.
He also confirmed an inrastructure bank to invest mainly in green projects.
But Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said the Budget stopped "way short" of the action needed to tackle the climate emergency.
Mr Sunak shielded drivers from a fuel duty rise and he clawed back money from a key home insulation scheme.
The remit of the Bank of England will change to include a duty to support the move towards near zero emissions.
Green Finance campaigner Simon Youel welcomed the move, saying it "should at a minimum mean the Bank dumping risky fossil fuels from its corporate quantitative easing programme and shifting funds towards green job-creating projects"..........contines
Green blobs grizzling that the chancellor isn't going to return us to Neanderthal mankind
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56270528
Critics have said Budget measures did not go far enough to address the scale of the challenge of climate change.
Chancellor Rishi Sunak announced a change to the Bank of England's remit as part of green measures in the Budget.
He also confirmed an inrastructure bank to invest mainly in green projects.
But Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said the Budget stopped "way short" of the action needed to tackle the climate emergency.
Mr Sunak shielded drivers from a fuel duty rise and he clawed back money from a key home insulation scheme.
The remit of the Bank of England will change to include a duty to support the move towards near zero emissions.
Green Finance campaigner Simon Youel welcomed the move, saying it "should at a minimum mean the Bank dumping risky fossil fuels from its corporate quantitative easing programme and shifting funds towards green job-creating projects"..........contines
Green blobs grizzling that the chancellor isn't going to return us to Neanderthal mankind
Sensei Rob said:
Meanwhile, life on Earth is fine and dandy. And that's the rub. If it wasn't for a people screaming that the sky is falling, we'd be oblivious to the "problem".
Award-Winning Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of UN IPCC: 'We Are Creating Great Anxiety Without It Being Justified...there are no indications that the warming is so severe that we need to panic...The warming we have had the last a 100 years is so small that if we didn't have had meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn't have noticed it at all.'kerplunk said:
Sensei Rob said:
It's funny how the warmists conveniently dismiss them as being "copy pasted" from some handbook, whilst they pretend they have better things to do than type out a response. Even if they were copy pasted, formulate a proper response.
PS
It's interesting how they changed the name from global warming to climate change. It's because people realised that we still have cold winters.
Hahahaha - complains about being dismissed as a parrot and then trots out an off the shelf canard about how 'they' changed the name from global warming to climate change. PricelessPS
It's interesting how they changed the name from global warming to climate change. It's because people realised that we still have cold winters.
Makes grandiose statements about unsettled science and then makes an emphatic statement about solar activity. Priceless
I can see you coming a mile away, and your name is bozo the clown.
You have to wonder where these people come from. We know there are massive disinformation campaigns running on social media; Twitter is bombarded with them:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/twitter...
Scientific American said:
Twitter accounts run by machines are a major source of climate change disinformation that might drain support from policies to address rising temperatures.
Something similar happening on PH too I wonder? 
dickymint said:
durbster said:
Something similar happening on PH too I wonder?
Is it a conspiracy
There are extremely well-documented disinformation campaigns prevalent on social media and elsewhere. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to consider that these would be targetting large public forums such as this one.
Your conspiracy theory on the other hand, has no evidence, no motive and is entirely implausible.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff