You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Climate Catasrophe
May 25 2020 9.46am

Climate Catasrophe

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 14 of 16 < 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >

 

View W12's Profile W12 Flag 06 Jun 19 1.14pm Send a Private Message to W12 Add W12 as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

Agreed.

It's one thing to have a specific policy e.g. all new cars and buses should be electric. This policy is to too vague.

It's fine for a party to have it as an aspiration but legislation should be specific and targetted. Otherwise we end up with another Foreign Aid solution where you have to spend the money rather than addressing the issue.

This was really the last issue I woke up to since I changed from "a bit of a lefty" a year or so ago.

Climate panic is just another angle of attack to institute socialism as (1) Normal people (i.e. people who would not normally vote green) will be panicked into voting green i.e. far left watermelons (2) This provides a justification for massively increasing taxation for groups the government don't like and redistribute wealth and (3) A reason to introducing authoritarianism to crack down on "climate deniers" (nazi's).

The evidence for a climate disaster just does not exist and the science around this is driven by politics and cronyism.

If you think climate change is the biggest issue we facing then you are simply just not paying attention.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Lyons550's Profile Lyons550 Flag Shirley 06 Jun 19 1.14pm Send a Private Message to Lyons550 Add Lyons550 as a friend

Originally posted by Penge Eagle

Finally, some sense from Phillip Hammond. These lofty green targets sound fantastic until it f***s up the economy and makes everyone poorer.

'Emissions target could cost UK 1tn, warns Hammond' [Link]

How about we invest in developing these and other technologies and then the 'cost' would be outweighed by the 'income' of selling it on and the rise in jobs?

 


The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 06 Jun 19 1.59pm Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

Originally posted by Lyons550

How about we invest in developing these and other technologies and then the 'cost' would be outweighed by the 'income' of selling it on and the rise in jobs?

Agreed.

I think the market will take care of a lot of the issues with a little nudge from government. Pushing hard on air quality especially in London will also help the climate change lobby. The added benefit is that pollution can be measured whereas climate change still has it's detractors.

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Penge Eagle's Profile Penge Eagle Flag Beckenham 06 Jun 19 4.20pm Send a Private Message to Penge Eagle Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Penge Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by W12

This was really the last issue I woke up to since I changed from "a bit of a lefty" a year or so ago.

Climate panic is just another angle of attack to institute socialism as (1) Normal people (i.e. people who would not normally vote green) will be panicked into voting green i.e. far left watermelons (2) This provides a justification for massively increasing taxation for groups the government don't like and redistribute wealth and (3) A reason to introducing authoritarianism to crack down on "climate deniers" (nazi's).

The evidence for a climate disaster just does not exist and the science around this is driven by politics and cronyism.

If you think climate change is the biggest issue we facing then you are simply just not paying attention.

Spot on. The climate change hysteria is driven with a socialist agenda so take down capitalism and put more control to the government. 'Climate change denier' is the new 'racist'.

 


New Palace fan site Screaming Alice [Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag Chatham 29 Jan 20 7.21pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

It appears the predictions by climate scientists are based on the wrong information about coal use.
Over 2000 research papers have used this info.
Now their results are wrong
Phew I thought we were dead in 10 years if we didnt live in caves and eat leaves
Can someone put the bbc story link up as last time I created the matrix on screen.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Flag 29 Jan 20 7.56pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by cryrst

It appears the predictions by climate scientists are based on the wrong information about coal use.
Over 2000 research papers have used this info.
Now their results are wrong
Phew I thought we were dead in 10 years if we didnt live in caves and eat leaves
Can someone put the bbc story link up as last time I created the matrix on screen.

This one?


[Link]


 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 29 Jan 20 8.02pm Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

It was pointed out that since the 1980's the UN and others have been predicting a global disaster within the next 10 years and then re-predicting it again and again.

I am not a climate change denier but neither am I a follower of Greta who thinks, guess what? the planet will be devastated within the next 10 years.

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Flag 29 Jan 20 8.09pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend


Climate change has been quite beneficial for some.
In 2001 Al Gore was estimated to be worth 2 million dollars. By 2013 he was worth over 300 million.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 29 Jan 20 8.09pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by cryrst

It appears the predictions by climate scientists are based on the wrong information about coal use.
Over 2000 research papers have used this info.
Now their results are wrong
Phew I thought we were dead in 10 years if we didnt live in caves and eat leaves
Can someone put the bbc story link up as last time I created the matrix on screen.

No-one wants incorrect information to pollute the thinking on this vital issue. It's important we deal in facts, and credible probabilities, and not in wild speculation designed to grab headlines.

Nevertheless, we must also not allow the inevitable refinements of the data bases to undermine the drive to acknowledge the problems and for us to face up to the need to make significant changes to the way we live.

We know climate change is happening and that man's activity has been responsible for much of it. Exactly what parts of that activity has contributed more, or less, of the effect is only important in knowing what counter actions are needed.

So whilst you were never going to be dead in 10 years as a result of climate change, I doubt whether this "revised information" you claim is going to make any difference.

As I cannot though find anything on this can you please identify the source?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag Chatham 29 Jan 20 9.07pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

No-one wants incorrect information to pollute the thinking on this vital issue. It's important we deal in facts, and credible probabilities, and not in wild speculation designed to grab headlines.

Nevertheless, we must also not allow the inevitable refinements of the data bases to undermine the drive to acknowledge the problems and for us to face up to the need to make significant changes to the way we live.

We know climate change is happening and that man's activity has been responsible for much of it. Exactly what parts of that activity has contributed more, or less, of the effect is only important in knowing what counter actions are needed.

So whilst you were never going to be dead in 10 years as a result of climate change, I doubt whether this "revised information" you claim is going to make any difference.

As I cannot though find anything on this can you please identify the source?

On The bbc and teddy has kindly posted it above (thanks T) so as you say no bias only facts.

One 'fact' not answered by anyone anywhere that I can find is your claim that much of climate change is caused by man.
Could you clarify even a % amount as to how much ,man is responsible for.
I cant find a figure so could you post a link.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 29 Jan 20 10.18pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by cryrst

On The bbc and teddy has kindly posted it above (thanks T) so as you say no bias only facts.

One 'fact' not answered by anyone anywhere that I can find is your claim that much of climate change is caused by man.
Could you clarify even a % amount as to how much ,man is responsible for.
I cant find a figure so could you post a link.


I think you need to read all of that report before making comments. It doesn't say what you said it does. All it suggests is that as the switch to renewables has accelerated quicker than originally anticipated the worst case scenarios are now more unlikely. It was always the case that the outcome of possibilities were within a range, and what it says is that the lower levels now look more probable. Which is good news, but as these are still above the levels that scientists believe are sustainable not really that good. Just not imminent disaster.

There is heaps of data available that suggest that man's contribution is 100%! This one says it's above 100% as the natural variation has been towards a cooling, thus mitigating some of man's impact:-

[Link]

Don't like that one, or suspect it might be "biased". Do you trust NASA? If so look at this:-

[Link]

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View serial thriller's Profile serial thriller Flag The Promised Land 29 Jan 20 10.43pm Send a Private Message to serial thriller Add serial thriller as a friend

[Link]

Think he means this article about how scientists have discovered that a giant glacier is melting faster than anticipated because of warming seas, and will trigger many major cities to go underwater.

Good old coal!

 


If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 14 of 16 < 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Climate Catasrophe