"Currants Bw..."

[Niall_Quinn]

Just so you know, even your nutters accept that were it even remotely possible for humans to control the global temperature - if every nation on the planet stopped burning fossil fuels today (leaving aside we'd all die as a result) it would still take somewhere between 200 to 1,000 years for the effects to be realised in global mean temperature. Even your nutters admit this. And that's assuming their crackpot claims of controlling the environment and that imaginary control having any effect are real.

To be a climate alarmist you literally have to pile a heap of bullshit onto another heap of bullshit and then pile another on top, just to form the foundation of a "scientific" argument. An argument which doesn't allow scrutiny, btw, like all the most valid arguments. And even then you ignore the essence of science by replacing observation with computer modelling. I wonder why?

Don't worry, rhetorical question with obvious answer.

Have a word with China and Russia too will you? Because they aren't on-board with the crackpot climate scam.

But let's all install heat pumps and start eating bugs and driving $30K golf buggies so we can tackle that 1% of global emissions we are responsible for. If we can get that down to zero then China definitely won't be laughing their arse off.

But that's it. No point reasoning with cultists.

Proof beyond doubt. Hey look ma! The bus didn't come today. That means no bus ever arrived in all of history! Fucking buses.

[Mac76]

For which read - so it's all too difficult so let's just using oil, concrete, flying everywhere, driving 4x4s, eating beef every day etc etc

and you don't care what happens in 200 years - to your great grandchildren?

[HCZ_Reborn]

For which read - so it's all too difficult so let's just using oil, concrete, flying everywhere, driving 4x4s, eating beef every day etc etc

and you don't care what happens in 200 years - to your great grandchildren?

The only point I would say NQ is right on is that the contraction of globalisation means that any global effort to move away from high carbon output energy makes is going to be almost impossible.

China due to demographic issues because of its own Ill thought out one child policy, the massive geographic differences between north and south, and it’s own dependence for importing for food means it’s totally fucked economically but for the Chinese communist party that will be ideal for them to clamp down and become even more authoritarian so there’s even less chance of coming to any agreement with them

Russia, and the Caucus and Eurasian states are the biggest natural sources of rare earth metals that would be necessary for viable alternatives to oil and gas (Chile, Brazil and places in Africa have them as well but not in the abundance we’d need)


And if we went on boondoggles like solar, wind it’s entirely dependent on where you are in order to utilise these


There is a school of thought that we are already passed the point of no return in terms of avoiding flooding, mass fires and migration and food shortage. And that any measure is about not making things any worse, what the groups like Just Stop Oil are ridiculously over the top is that they predict climate failure to be an existential disaster for mankind it’s not…a lot of people will die in excess of who normally die…and more areas will become uninhabitable for some considerable time and you may also see a dramatic decrease of human population as well as the extinction of several animal/plant species.

None of which is particularly pleasant or desirable, but I’m not entirely sure it can be avoided. Plus Famine is going to be the biggest issue irregardless of climate change as there will be a lot of break down of supply chains on the horizon and will take a long time to inaugurate new ones

[Letters]

Anyone can educate themselves. You don't have to learn it all in a day. Pick a sub-topic and get reading.

Sure, anyone can read. But the problem is you have shown repeatedly that your ability to process data is skewed so much by your worldview that it leads you to wrong conclusions.
The information you accept as "real science" depends entirely on whether it confirms what you want to believe. Everything else is dismissed as "propaganda" or "fake science".
And sure, humans have survived other shifts of climate. We will survive this one - as a species we will survive, but the effects of climate change will kill a lot of people.
I looked at the source of that long term climate graph you posted. This is the paper it's from:

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...re_Projections

Quote from it:

An undisputed fact, which the scientific community has agreed upon today, is the increased burning of fossil fuel since the beginning of the industrial revolution has resulted in the profound results of climate change, which we witness at the present. In the early days of the Industrial Revolution, no one would have thought that the burning of fossil fuels would have an almost immediate effect on the climate. The impacts of such increase began to be felt, however, in some regions of the world as early as the 1830 s. Scientific findings show that warming did not develop at the same time across the whole planet. The tropical oceans and the Arc-tic were the first regions to begin warming in the 1830 s. Europe, North America, and Asia followed roughly two decades later. This warming in most regions reversed what would otherwise have been a cooling trend related to high volcanic activity during the preceding centuries. From all available evidence, we can conclude that this warming is due to the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by humans.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, humans have expelled considerable amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This has triggered unnatural warming that has seen the Earth’s temperature rise dramatically over a short period. The average global temperature was 12˚C during the Last Glacial Maximum. During the following interglacial period, the average global temperature slowly rose to 13.8˚C. From 1880 to 2015, it has increased by another 0.6˚ degree to 14.4˚C. This rate of warming is about 50 times faster than the rate of warming during the previous 21,000 years. From 1950 to 2000 and beyond, carbon has increased in the atmosphere is a far steeper, more exponential curve

That's from the source you posted

Now. I don't think there's anything we can do about it. The UK isn't anywhere near the worst offender and we're not going to get countries like China or India to stop developing, or the US to temper their excesses.
And actually in this country probably won't suffer as much as some others. I also agree that some of the "green" ideas aren't actually going to improve things. I don't think Electric Vehicles are the silver bullet some seem to think.

In brief - climate change is happening, it's happened in my lifetime. There is pretty much consensus that we are a cause. But there's bugger all we can do about it anyway. I don't think that means we shouldn't try, we might as well recycle and think about our carbon footprints. But when push comes to shove I'm not willing to give up my comfortable lifestyle and nor is anyone else. So we'd be better off trying to work out how to deal with climate change rather than trying to stop it.

[Mac76]

The only point I would say NQ is right on is that the contraction of globalisation means that any global effort to move away from high carbon output energy makes is going to be almost impossible.

China due to demographic issues because of its own Ill thought out one child policy, the massive geographic differences between north and south, and it’s own dependence for importing for food means it’s totally fucked economically but for the Chinese communist party that will be ideal for them to clamp down and become even more authoritarian so there’s even less chance of coming to any agreement with them

Russia, and the Caucus and Eurasian states are the biggest natural sources of rare earth metals that would be necessary for viable alternatives to oil and gas (Chile, Brazil and places in Africa have them as well but not in the abundance we’d need)


And if we went on boondoggles like solar, wind it’s entirely dependent on where you are in order to utilise these


There is a school of thought that we are already passed the point of no return in terms of avoiding flooding, mass fires and migration and food shortage. And that any measure is about not making things any worse, what the groups like Just Stop Oil are ridiculously over the top is that they predict climate failure to be an existential disaster for mankind it’s not…a lot of people will die in excess of who normally die…and more areas will become uninhabitable for some considerable time and you may also see a dramatic decrease of human population as well as the extinction of several animal/plant species.

None of which is particularly pleasant or desirable, but I’m not entirely sure it can be avoided. Plus Famine is going to be the biggest issue irregardless of climate change as there will be a lot of break down of supply chains on the horizon and will take a long time to inaugurate new ones

but the point is NQ is denying it altogether as some kind of conspiracy by 'nutters' - and then he goes on to talk about the 200-year thing which tbh shoudl be irrelevantt according to him, because it's all a lie - i.e. he's trying to have it both ways - very typical of how he argues, he shifts from one point to another to avoid admitting he's been proved wrong - e.g. he said i couldn't produce evidence and i immediately did so, so it then became a discussion about the 200 years thing

on the bigger question, whether we are past the point of no return or not, that doesn't excuse everyone trying to do what they can - and of course it's existential - if the planet continues to leep heating up ad infinitum we're talking total wipeout

basically the deniers who've caused this all in the first place can now say - "ok, we're wrong but hey let's just all keep doing all those carbon-producing things because it's too late"

People can knock the JSO people and perhaps they are to some extent counter-productive in maybe alienating some people from their cause (although only the stupid ones IMO) but at least they're on the right side of the argument

[Mac76]

Gosh it can't possibly be true that somone has made up something nasty about the BBC which actually isn't accurate - can it?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...tre-of-scandal

[HCZ_Reborn]

but the point is NQ is denying it altogether as some kind of conspiracy by 'nutters' - and then he goes on to talk about the 200-year thing which tbh shoudl be irrelevantt according to him, because it's all a lie - i.e. he's trying to have it both ways - very typical of how he argues, he shifts from one point to another to avoid admitting he's been proved wrong - e.g. he said i couldn't produce evidence and i immediately did so it became a discussion about the 200 years thing

on the bigger question, whether we are past the point of no return or not, that doesn't excuse everyone trying to do what they can - and of course it's existential - if the planet continues to leep heating up ad infinitum we're talking Mercury adn no-one can

basically the deniers who've caused this all in the first place can now say - "ok, we're wrong but hey let's just all keep doing all those carbon-producing things because it's too late"

People can knock the JSO people and perhaps they are to some extent counter-productive in maybe alienating some people from their cause (although only the stupid ones IMO) but at least they're on the right side of the argument

I don’t even engage with NQ’s view on climate change, like with everything else it’s based on a contrarian world view and his counter-argument is equally as contrarian.

I’m simply stating that he might have an argument when he says “even if I accept the science is true, the barrier to getting where we need to be is insurmountable”

Now that’s not me saying we should do nothing, any effort towards amelioration is worthwhile if it is sustainable and doesn’t cause more damage in the short term than it prevents in the long term.

This is where I abhor JSO, they are for me on the wrong side of the argument because they are causing mass disruption in pursuit of a goal that would be monstrously irresponsible. We as a country simply cannot safely avoid signing new oil and gas contracts in the short term, now that’s partly our fault because governments have done nothing to provide the infrastructure to make us energy independent but there’s also a necessity for primary materials that we would need to import (lithium, copper, uranium - if we go down the nuclear road)

My feeling is that we should go strong on nuclear, fuck the NIMBYs and not just fission but putting the funding into Fusion research. Not against solar and wind but they are for me back up sources.

But I’m aware that there’s a question of materials and time

But any movement towards stopping using oil and gas has to be gradual and incremental, but JSO are like “no new contracts” and worry about the consequences later. Fuck them

[HCZ_Reborn]

Gosh it can't possibly be true that somone has made up something nasty about the BBC which actually isn't accurate - can it?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...tre-of-scandal

Isn’t the problem that we are looking at this issue through the lens of Anti Beeb vs Anti Murdoch rather than critically examining why this accusation came about.

This is ostensibly a mother concerned about her son because presumably they are reliant on the money they are getting from this presenter to fund a drug habit. The denial from the individual seems to me more about someone wanting this arrangement to carry on for purposes of money.

Could be wrong, and the Sun behaving irresponsibly and unethically? Quelle Surprise

But the specific nature of the allegation suggests to me that it’s not a lie

[Niall_Quinn]

For which read - so it's all too difficult so let's just using oil, concrete, flying everywhere, driving 4x4s, eating beef every day etc etc

and you don't care what happens in 200 years - to your great grandchildren?

For which read, we have serious problems with pollution which are being ignored so polluters can preach about carbon and, surprise, surprise, tax us on the back of those sermons.

The proposal is to blow TRILLIONS on "green" (see Michal Moore documentary that was censored out of existence) "solutions" that just so happen to enrich the usual suspects. If the climate threat was real we could do things like:

Make public transport free - that would cost pennies by comparison.
Utilise nuclear power (by far the safest technology even compared to these new non-green green alternatives)
Fund projects that improve existing technologies rather than replace them with ruinously costly non-alternatives like the impractical and entirely unsustainable electric car.
Send practical assistance to third world countries to assist with upgrading efficient and cleaner power grids, again for a faction of the cost of net zero.
And do on...

But no real solutions are on the table. Instead the plan is for the rich to get rich and the for everyone else to eat less, heat less, meet less (pun intended). All so we can win an alleged 1 degree drop in global climate within the next thousand years?

If we'd never heard of climate catastrophe and I came along and proposed all this to you you'd be calling me insane. But because self-interest criminals who have lied to you time and time again say it, well it must be true.

[Niall_Quinn]

The only point I would say NQ is right on is that the contraction of globalisation means that any global effort to move away from high carbon output energy makes is going to be almost impossible.

China due to demographic issues because of its own Ill thought out one child policy, the massive geographic differences between north and south, and it’s own dependence for importing for food means it’s totally fucked economically but for the Chinese communist party that will be ideal for them to clamp down and become even more authoritarian so there’s even less chance of coming to any agreement with them

Russia, and the Caucus and Eurasian states are the biggest natural sources of rare earth metals that would be necessary for viable alternatives to oil and gas (Chile, Brazil and places in Africa have them as well but not in the abundance we’d need)


And if we went on boondoggles like solar, wind it’s entirely dependent on where you are in order to utilise these


There is a school of thought that we are already passed the point of no return in terms of avoiding flooding, mass fires and migration and food shortage. And that any measure is about not making things any worse, what the groups like Just Stop Oil are ridiculously over the top is that they predict climate failure to be an existential disaster for mankind it’s not…a lot of people will die in excess of who normally die…and more areas will become uninhabitable for some considerable time and you may also see a dramatic decrease of human population as well as the extinction of several animal/plant species.

None of which is particularly pleasant or desirable, but I’m not entirely sure it can be avoided. Plus Famine is going to be the biggest issue irregardless of climate change as there will be a lot of break down of supply chains on the horizon and will take a long time to inaugurate new ones

Why do you just accept these catastrophes will happen? Such things have been predicted for decades and none of the predictions have ever been correct. Not one. Natural disasters are not on the rise. Islands haven't sunk beneath the oceans. Ice caps haven't vanished. Polar bears are still chasing seals.

How many "points of no return" are we going to have before we reach the point of no more bullshit?