Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)
Discussion
dickymint said:
PRTVR said:
Questions on net zero at the senate.
https://youtu.be/KT9DsBNecko?si=nBKUWp6amooPiK9u
It's obvious she can't answer the question and doesn't care about the poor, but she is like all religious types you just have to believe...........
Even better from the same inquiry I think. Her snout is firmly in the trough............................https://youtu.be/KT9DsBNecko?si=nBKUWp6amooPiK9u
It's obvious she can't answer the question and doesn't care about the poor, but she is like all religious types you just have to believe...........
Chris Stark: Rishi Sunak has set us back, head of climate change watchdog says
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68863796
Rishi Sunak has "set us back" on climate change and left the UK at risk of falling behind other countries, the head of a government watchdog has said.
Chris Stark, head of the Climate Change Committee (CCC), told the BBC the prime minister had "clearly not" prioritised the issue as much as his predecessors.
He accused Mr Sunak of sending the world a message that the UK is now "less ambitious" than it once was.
Seems as if he doesn't like it when a dose of realism kicks in.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68863796
Rishi Sunak has "set us back" on climate change and left the UK at risk of falling behind other countries, the head of a government watchdog has said.
Chris Stark, head of the Climate Change Committee (CCC), told the BBC the prime minister had "clearly not" prioritised the issue as much as his predecessors.
He accused Mr Sunak of sending the world a message that the UK is now "less ambitious" than it once was.
Seems as if he doesn't like it when a dose of realism kicks in.
turbobloke said:
dickymint said:
PRTVR said:
Questions on net zero at the senate.
https://youtu.be/KT9DsBNecko?si=nBKUWp6amooPiK9u
It's obvious she can't answer the question and doesn't care about the poor, but she is like all religious types you just have to believe...........
Even better from the same inquiry I think. Her snout is firmly in the trough............................https://youtu.be/KT9DsBNecko?si=nBKUWp6amooPiK9u
It's obvious she can't answer the question and doesn't care about the poor, but she is like all religious types you just have to believe...........
This is not a good look for her.
How much?! Try very far from zero.turbobloke said:
Can you warn us what the link is to? And I'm not picking on you and this specific issue - it just makes life easier. 
Especially because of the way computer stuff works now. It should absolutely be an open debate. Like any other scientific basis....
If he thinks the debate should be shut down, he needs irrefutable evidence.....wonder if he has the same opinion about flat earthers?
Saying that, I 've yet to be convinced MMGW is not real based on papers put forward so far with the opposing view. YouTube videos don't cut it either.
If he thinks the debate should be shut down, he needs irrefutable evidence.....wonder if he has the same opinion about flat earthers?
Saying that, I 've yet to be convinced MMGW is not real based on papers put forward so far with the opposing view. YouTube videos don't cut it either.
mike9009 said:
It should absolutely be an open debate. Like any other scientific basis....
If he thinks the debate should be shut down, he needs irrefutable evidence.....wonder if he has the same opinion about flat earthers?
Saying that, I 've yet to be convinced MMGW is not real based on papers put forward so far with the opposing view. YouTube videos don't cut it either.
I doubt anybody does not think MMGW is a thing, the argument is over how big the effect is and what if anything we should do about it. The problem I have is that mandating certain actions effectively blocks other possibly better solutions from coming to the fore. If he thinks the debate should be shut down, he needs irrefutable evidence.....wonder if he has the same opinion about flat earthers?
Saying that, I 've yet to be convinced MMGW is not real based on papers put forward so far with the opposing view. YouTube videos don't cut it either.
The rush to electric cars when a conversion to hydrogen would have been a cheaper option and better for both the climate and the environment is a case in point.
Vanden Saab said:
mike9009 said:
It should absolutely be an open debate. Like any other scientific basis....
If he thinks the debate should be shut down, he needs irrefutable evidence.....wonder if he has the same opinion about flat earthers?
Saying that, I 've yet to be convinced MMGW is not real based on papers put forward so far with the opposing view. YouTube videos don't cut it either.
I doubt anybody does not think MMGW is a thing, the argument is over how big the effect is and what if anything we should do about it. The problem I have is that mandating certain actions effectively blocks other possibly better solutions from coming to the fore. <snip>If he thinks the debate should be shut down, he needs irrefutable evidence.....wonder if he has the same opinion about flat earthers?
Saying that, I 've yet to be convinced MMGW is not real based on papers put forward so far with the opposing view. YouTube videos don't cut it either.
.
The odd individual wanting 'deniers' to suffer via an injustice system is thinking (or at least typing) as somebody who fails to realise the point made above, that extremely few people say there's no effect whatsoever of adding CO2 to the atmosphere, but plenty now appreciate that the non-dangerous effects don't represent a crisis, such that all manner of astronomically expensive knee-jerk responses aren't needed with many positively harmful. As such there are very few people caught by such a bizarre wish.
People who would be indicted over what the oddball wishes for, would not include Prof Hulme nor numerous other climatologists as well as many PHers who do no more than point out the lack of a climate emergency, the lack of crisis, not the lack of absolutely anything. The language used and the manner of its use indicate religious zealotry and intolerant, extremist totalitarianism, not knowledge and understanding, it's at the level of witch trials. Bonkers. Shutting down debate has long neen seen as the only way to keep the faith and stop information escaping into the public domain that would 'do damage' to The Cause and blow the (non-)emergency hype apart. That has now happened, it's too late to go back. Plenty of extremists will pretend otherwise.
Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 23 April 14:18
Vanden Saab said:
mike9009 said:
It should absolutely be an open debate. Like any other scientific basis....
If he thinks the debate should be shut down, he needs irrefutable evidence.....wonder if he has the same opinion about flat earthers?
Saying that, I 've yet to be convinced MMGW is not real based on papers put forward so far with the opposing view. YouTube videos don't cut it either.
I doubt anybody does not think MMGW is a thing, the argument is over how big the effect is and what if anything we should do about it. The problem I have is that mandating certain actions effectively blocks other possibly better solutions from coming to the fore. If he thinks the debate should be shut down, he needs irrefutable evidence.....wonder if he has the same opinion about flat earthers?
Saying that, I 've yet to be convinced MMGW is not real based on papers put forward so far with the opposing view. YouTube videos don't cut it either.
The rush to electric cars when a conversion to hydrogen would have been a cheaper option and better for both the climate and the environment is a case in point.
Modern electric cars is hardly a 'rush', about 30 years development is probably more beneficial to urban pollution rather than global warming. But if humans insist on buying new cars then that 'slow' transition is probably worthwhile.
The boss of the Climate Change Committee has proposed that “Net Zero” as a term is cancelled. They're on the way out also, apparently. Fitting. Surely the departure is nothing to do with schoolboy errors in CCC modelling of Net Zero costs. In that mess up they were in good company.
Just as global warming morphed into climate change and other nonsense when people were getting snowed out (i.e.snowed in) after being told snow was a thing of the past, this is a sure sign of failure. Window dressing is all the green blob has to work with.
Just as global warming morphed into climate change and other nonsense when people were getting snowed out (i.e.snowed in) after being told snow was a thing of the past, this is a sure sign of failure. Window dressing is all the green blob has to work with.
So far there's no announcement as to the actual cost of Net Zero according to gov't calculations, that would be 'interesting' to see, nor is there any detail on how fertiliser from oil is going to be replaced by inorganics to stop millions dying from starvation. If these religous climatewang zealots want to save lives, don't stop oil, stop Net Zero, and stop spouting climate claptrap dogma along the way.
Vanden Saab said:
I doubt anybody does not think MMGW is a thing, the argument is over how big the effect is and what if anything we should do about it. The problem I have is that mandating certain actions effectively blocks other possibly better solutions from coming to the fore.
The rush to electric cars when a conversion to hydrogen would have been a cheaper option and better for both the climate and the environment is a case in point.
It isn't on either point and has been evidenced across a number of threads if you chose to look, making the assumption that you can understand the physics and sums involved. The rush to electric cars when a conversion to hydrogen would have been a cheaper option and better for both the climate and the environment is a case in point.
How do you reconcile the advent of EVs now over a decade ago with the sales mandate of 2035 by which time only 50% of our cars will be BEV so at least 2045 before all EV so actually well over 30 years as being a rush.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff