FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Do climate change deniers...
Do climate change deniers...
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change?" Clue in the name? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change?" Yes. Fab is packed to the rafters with them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Yes. Fab is packed to the rafters with them. " Exaggerating a little  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name?" Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here?" There will always be deniers, but there are also people who are not denying the climate is changing for the worst and things are unstable, but are questioning the modelling and data being used. Those people get full denier headlines for questioning the science. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here? There will always be deniers, but there are also people who are not denying the climate is changing for the worst and things are unstable, but are questioning the modelling and data being used. Those people get full denier headlines for questioning the science. " We don't need to look at the science when we see it happening - hotter summers, colder winters, floods. Of course we have to look at the science for cause and solution... But climate change is incredibly destructive and is here! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here? There will always be deniers, but there are also people who are not denying the climate is changing for the worst and things are unstable, but are questioning the modelling and data being used. Those people get full denier headlines for questioning the science. We don't need to look at the science when we see it happening - hotter summers, colder winters, floods. Of course we have to look at the science for cause and solution... But climate change is incredibly destructive and is here!" You asked if there are still deniers, I answered that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here? There will always be deniers, but there are also people who are not denying the climate is changing for the worst and things are unstable, but are questioning the modelling and data being used. Those people get full denier headlines for questioning the science. We don't need to look at the science when we see it happening - hotter summers, colder winters, floods. Of course we have to look at the science for cause and solution... But climate change is incredibly destructive and is here! You asked if there are still deniers, I answered that" Oh right the thread is finished, my bad   | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here? There will always be deniers, but there are also people who are not denying the climate is changing for the worst and things are unstable, but are questioning the modelling and data being used. Those people get full denier headlines for questioning the science. " As well they should for "questioning the science" in any field. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here? There will always be deniers, but there are also people who are not denying the climate is changing for the worst and things are unstable, but are questioning the modelling and data being used. Those people get full denier headlines for questioning the science. As well they should for "questioning the science" in any field." People aren’t allowed to question science? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here? There will always be deniers, but there are also people who are not denying the climate is changing for the worst and things are unstable, but are questioning the modelling and data being used. Those people get full denier headlines for questioning the science. As well they should for "questioning the science" in any field." Nothing wrong with questioning the science. Scientists do it all the time | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Climate change is undeniable - the evidence is utterly indisputable. Man-made climate change is where the debate truly is, and the evidence is almost equally indisputable, but akin to flat-earthers, some will go to ludicrous attempts to deny it. " The challenge I'm seeing is not from those denying climate is changing, it is coming from people who are asking how is it changing, are the models correct? The question of if we had the ability to model and capture samples from earth the last time there was a significant climate change, what would the data have said then. Some of this is known through core samples, in ice, soil etc so that challenge really seems to be put to bed. The challenge that is less easy to answer is the predictions of temp rises, the timings and the modelling. There are some robust views on both sides of the fence on the accuracy. I know I go on about quantum computing but I really do believe it will help put these arguments to bed with definitive answers we don't have today. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here? There will always be deniers, but there are also people who are not denying the climate is changing for the worst and things are unstable, but are questioning the modelling and data being used. Those people get full denier headlines for questioning the science. As well they should for "questioning the science" in any field. People aren’t allowed to question science? " Of course. But it's moronic, unless they've conducted their own science that supercedes the existing understanding of climate science. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Climate change is undeniable - the evidence is utterly indisputable. Man-made climate change is where the debate truly is, and the evidence is almost equally indisputable, but akin to flat-earthers, some will go to ludicrous attempts to deny it. The challenge I'm seeing is not from those denying climate is changing, it is coming from people who are asking how is it changing, are the models correct? The question of if we had the ability to model and capture samples from earth the last time there was a significant climate change, what would the data have said then. Some of this is known through core samples, in ice, soil etc so that challenge really seems to be put to bed. The challenge that is less easy to answer is the predictions of temp rises, the timings and the modelling. There are some robust views on both sides of the fence on the accuracy. I know I go on about quantum computing but I really do believe it will help put these arguments to bed with definitive answers we don't have today. " There really is no coherent argument about moving to renewables ASAP beyond the cost of such a project. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Climate change is undeniable - the evidence is utterly indisputable. Man-made climate change is where the debate truly is, and the evidence is almost equally indisputable, but akin to flat-earthers, some will go to ludicrous attempts to deny it. The challenge I'm seeing is not from those denying climate is changing, it is coming from people who are asking how is it changing, are the models correct? The question of if we had the ability to model and capture samples from earth the last time there was a significant climate change, what would the data have said then. Some of this is known through core samples, in ice, soil etc so that challenge really seems to be put to bed. The challenge that is less easy to answer is the predictions of temp rises, the timings and the modelling. There are some robust views on both sides of the fence on the accuracy. I know I go on about quantum computing but I really do believe it will help put these arguments to bed with definitive answers we don't have today. " The only challenge is coming from those sponsored by the fossil fuels industry, with the aim to instill doubt. It's working, and it's ensuring their profits at the cost of the environment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Climate change is undeniable - the evidence is utterly indisputable. Man-made climate change is where the debate truly is, and the evidence is almost equally indisputable, but akin to flat-earthers, some will go to ludicrous attempts to deny it. The challenge I'm seeing is not from those denying climate is changing, it is coming from people who are asking how is it changing, are the models correct? The question of if we had the ability to model and capture samples from earth the last time there was a significant climate change, what would the data have said then. Some of this is known through core samples, in ice, soil etc so that challenge really seems to be put to bed. The challenge that is less easy to answer is the predictions of temp rises, the timings and the modelling. There are some robust views on both sides of the fence on the accuracy. I know I go on about quantum computing but I really do believe it will help put these arguments to bed with definitive answers we don't have today. There really is no coherent argument about moving to renewables ASAP beyond the cost of such a project. " There is an argument about the timings and the capabilities of renewables. We are not in a position to remove fossil fuels from energy creation. When will we be in that position, is the question | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Climate change is undeniable - the evidence is utterly indisputable. Man-made climate change is where the debate truly is, and the evidence is almost equally indisputable, but akin to flat-earthers, some will go to ludicrous attempts to deny it. The challenge I'm seeing is not from those denying climate is changing, it is coming from people who are asking how is it changing, are the models correct? The question of if we had the ability to model and capture samples from earth the last time there was a significant climate change, what would the data have said then. Some of this is known through core samples, in ice, soil etc so that challenge really seems to be put to bed. The challenge that is less easy to answer is the predictions of temp rises, the timings and the modelling. There are some robust views on both sides of the fence on the accuracy. I know I go on about quantum computing but I really do believe it will help put these arguments to bed with definitive answers we don't have today. There really is no coherent argument about moving to renewables ASAP beyond the cost of such a project. There is an argument about the timings and the capabilities of renewables. We are not in a position to remove fossil fuels from energy creation. When will we be in that position, is the question " We *could* have been in that position decades ago. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Climate change is undeniable - the evidence is utterly indisputable. Man-made climate change is where the debate truly is, and the evidence is almost equally indisputable, but akin to flat-earthers, some will go to ludicrous attempts to deny it. The challenge I'm seeing is not from those denying climate is changing, it is coming from people who are asking how is it changing, are the models correct? The question of if we had the ability to model and capture samples from earth the last time there was a significant climate change, what would the data have said then. Some of this is known through core samples, in ice, soil etc so that challenge really seems to be put to bed. The challenge that is less easy to answer is the predictions of temp rises, the timings and the modelling. There are some robust views on both sides of the fence on the accuracy. I know I go on about quantum computing but I really do believe it will help put these arguments to bed with definitive answers we don't have today. There really is no coherent argument about moving to renewables ASAP beyond the cost of such a project. There is an argument about the timings and the capabilities of renewables. We are not in a position to remove fossil fuels from energy creation. When will we be in that position, is the question We *could* have been in that position decades ago. " Reality is we aren't and the question is what renewable energy is needed to power our world with the same output we have today with fossil fuels? What is the preferred supply and what are the limitations | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Climate change is undeniable - the evidence is utterly indisputable. Man-made climate change is where the debate truly is, and the evidence is almost equally indisputable, but akin to flat-earthers, some will go to ludicrous attempts to deny it. The challenge I'm seeing is not from those denying climate is changing, it is coming from people who are asking how is it changing, are the models correct? The question of if we had the ability to model and capture samples from earth the last time there was a significant climate change, what would the data have said then. Some of this is known through core samples, in ice, soil etc so that challenge really seems to be put to bed. The challenge that is less easy to answer is the predictions of temp rises, the timings and the modelling. There are some robust views on both sides of the fence on the accuracy. I know I go on about quantum computing but I really do believe it will help put these arguments to bed with definitive answers we don't have today. There really is no coherent argument about moving to renewables ASAP beyond the cost of such a project. There is an argument about the timings and the capabilities of renewables. We are not in a position to remove fossil fuels from energy creation. When will we be in that position, is the question We *could* have been in that position decades ago. Reality is we aren't and the question is what renewable energy is needed to power our world with the same output we have today with fossil fuels? What is the preferred supply and what are the limitations " It’ll ultimately be a combination of nuclear and renewables, perhaps hydrogen too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Climate change is undeniable - the evidence is utterly indisputable. Man-made climate change is where the debate truly is, and the evidence is almost equally indisputable, but akin to flat-earthers, some will go to ludicrous attempts to deny it. The challenge I'm seeing is not from those denying climate is changing, it is coming from people who are asking how is it changing, are the models correct? The question of if we had the ability to model and capture samples from earth the last time there was a significant climate change, what would the data have said then. Some of this is known through core samples, in ice, soil etc so that challenge really seems to be put to bed. The challenge that is less easy to answer is the predictions of temp rises, the timings and the modelling. There are some robust views on both sides of the fence on the accuracy. I know I go on about quantum computing but I really do believe it will help put these arguments to bed with definitive answers we don't have today. There really is no coherent argument about moving to renewables ASAP beyond the cost of such a project. There is an argument about the timings and the capabilities of renewables. We are not in a position to remove fossil fuels from energy creation. When will we be in that position, is the question We *could* have been in that position decades ago. Reality is we aren't and the question is what renewable energy is needed to power our world with the same output we have today with fossil fuels? What is the preferred supply and what are the limitations It’ll ultimately be a combination of nuclear and renewables, perhaps hydrogen too." I don't disagree with nuclear, but this is what needs speeding up, the direction. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... What you see though, is any who dares ask question it is very quickly labelled a 'climate change denier'." Well the labeller is an idiot IF that does indeed occur. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are no climate change deniers in here from what I've seen. In fact, there really can't be any in the whole world, the climate changes, that is a fact, it is always has done. What you see though, is any who dares ask question it is very quickly labelled a 'climate change denier'." The more appropriate term would be "anthropomorphic climate change denier". It's just easy to shorten it. There are definitely one or two science deniers here. Then a whole bunch who swollow the bullshit fake doubt that the fossil fuels industry magics up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are no climate change deniers in here from what I've seen. In fact, there really can't be any in the whole world, the climate changes, that is a fact, it is always has done. What you see though, is any who dares ask question it is very quickly labelled a 'climate change denier'. The more appropriate term would be "anthropomorphic climate change denier". It's just easy to shorten it. There are definitely one or two science deniers here. Then a whole bunch who swollow the bullshit fake doubt that the fossil fuels industry magics up." Don't forget those that swallow every last drop without a question. I did ask this earlier but I will put it to you again as a question to your last answer, can people question science and if they do should they be labeled a denier for doing so? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change?" We all believe in climate change. I think you may be referring to human influence? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are no climate change deniers in here from what I've seen. In fact, there really can't be any in the whole world, the climate changes, that is a fact, it is always has done. What you see though, is any who dares ask question it is very quickly labelled a 'climate change denier'. The more appropriate term would be "anthropomorphic climate change denier". It's just easy to shorten it. There are definitely one or two science deniers here. Then a whole bunch who swollow the bullshit fake doubt that the fossil fuels industry magics up." ********************************* Do you realise how peremptory your posts seem to be on any subject you choose to comment.....?? People's reasons for voting the way they do......, climate change 'science' discussion....., the 'ultimate' aim of the oil industry..... etc. I'm certainly NOT 'making stuff up' about you, as you have previously complained, nor do I 'dislike' you, as you have aimed at others here who reply against your views. I'm merely stating my opinion that you might have a little more respect towards the opinions of other contributors, is all. Incidentally, I really do enjoy certain other folks' opinions here, there is usually a good, grown-up debate to be seen. To these unnamed forumites, I say many thanks..! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are no climate change deniers in here from what I've seen. In fact, there really can't be any in the whole world, the climate changes, that is a fact, it is always has done. What you see though, is any who dares ask question it is very quickly labelled a 'climate change denier'. The more appropriate term would be "anthropomorphic climate change denier". It's just easy to shorten it. There are definitely one or two science deniers here. Then a whole bunch who swollow the bullshit fake doubt that the fossil fuels industry magics up. Don't forget those that swallow every last drop without a question. I did ask this earlier but I will put it to you again as a question to your last answer, can people question science and if they do should they be labeled a denier for doing so? " I answered this already. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are no climate change deniers in here from what I've seen. In fact, there really can't be any in the whole world, the climate changes, that is a fact, it is always has done. What you see though, is any who dares ask question it is very quickly labelled a 'climate change denier'. The more appropriate term would be "anthropomorphic climate change denier". It's just easy to shorten it. There are definitely one or two science deniers here. Then a whole bunch who swollow the bullshit fake doubt that the fossil fuels industry magics up. ********************************* Do you realise how peremptory your posts seem to be on any subject you choose to comment.....?? People's reasons for voting the way they do......, climate change 'science' discussion....., the 'ultimate' aim of the oil industry..... etc. I'm certainly NOT 'making stuff up' about you, as you have previously complained, nor do I 'dislike' you, as you have aimed at others here who reply against your views. I'm merely stating my opinion that you might have a little more respect towards the opinions of other contributors, is all. Incidentally, I really do enjoy certain other folks' opinions here, there is usually a good, grown-up debate to be seen. To these unnamed forumites, I say many thanks..!" Your last sentence... Thank you very much  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are no climate change deniers in here from what I've seen. In fact, there really can't be any in the whole world, the climate changes, that is a fact, it is always has done. What you see though, is any who dares ask question it is very quickly labelled a 'climate change denier'. The more appropriate term would be "anthropomorphic climate change denier". It's just easy to shorten it. There are definitely one or two science deniers here. Then a whole bunch who swollow the bullshit fake doubt that the fossil fuels industry magics up. ********************************* Do you realise how peremptory your posts seem to be on any subject you choose to comment.....?? People's reasons for voting the way they do......, climate change 'science' discussion....., the 'ultimate' aim of the oil industry..... etc. I'm certainly NOT 'making stuff up' about you, as you have previously complained, nor do I 'dislike' you, as you have aimed at others here who reply against your views. I'm merely stating my opinion that you might have a little more respect towards the opinions of other contributors, is all. Incidentally, I really do enjoy certain other folks' opinions here, there is usually a good, grown-up debate to be seen. To these unnamed forumites, I say many thanks..!" Just a whole post personal attack. Not even attempting to even vaguely discuss the topic. Do you ever address the points being made in threads, or are you purely here to personally attack and insult people you don't like? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are no climate change deniers in here from what I've seen. In fact, there really can't be any in the whole world, the climate changes, that is a fact, it is always has done. What you see though, is any who dares ask question it is very quickly labelled a 'climate change denier'. The more appropriate term would be "anthropomorphic climate change denier". It's just easy to shorten it. There are definitely one or two science deniers here. Then a whole bunch who swollow the bullshit fake doubt that the fossil fuels industry magics up. ********************************* Do you realise how peremptory your posts seem to be on any subject you choose to comment.....?? People's reasons for voting the way they do......, climate change 'science' discussion....., the 'ultimate' aim of the oil industry..... etc. I'm certainly NOT 'making stuff up' about you, as you have previously complained, nor do I 'dislike' you, as you have aimed at others here who reply against your views. I'm merely stating my opinion that you might have a little more respect towards the opinions of other contributors, is all. Incidentally, I really do enjoy certain other folks' opinions here, there is usually a good, grown-up debate to be seen. To these unnamed forumites, I say many thanks..! Just a whole post personal attack. Not even attempting to even vaguely discuss the topic. Do you ever address the points being made in threads, or are you purely here to personally attack and insult people you don't like?" ****************************** Rubbish. I commented on the way you reply on a topic, which is relevant to ANY topical theme. I am perfectly entitled do so, as are you, as long as within the forum rules. If you came across as reasonable, then yes, I may well converse wirh you. That was an obervation I wrote against your posts, NOT a "personal attack". This seems to be a standard reply to anyone critical of your posts. From now on, I shall totally disregard anything you post here, without exception, as I imagine many others do. AND..... I accept your thanks for doing so, in advance. Good evening. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are no climate change deniers in here from what I've seen. In fact, there really can't be any in the whole world, the climate changes, that is a fact, it is always has done. What you see though, is any who dares ask question it is very quickly labelled a 'climate change denier'. The more appropriate term would be "anthropomorphic climate change denier". It's just easy to shorten it. There are definitely one or two science deniers here. Then a whole bunch who swollow the bullshit fake doubt that the fossil fuels industry magics up. ********************************* Do you realise how peremptory your posts seem to be on any subject you choose to comment.....?? People's reasons for voting the way they do......, climate change 'science' discussion....., the 'ultimate' aim of the oil industry..... etc. I'm certainly NOT 'making stuff up' about you, as you have previously complained, nor do I 'dislike' you, as you have aimed at others here who reply against your views. I'm merely stating my opinion that you might have a little more respect towards the opinions of other contributors, is all. Incidentally, I really do enjoy certain other folks' opinions here, there is usually a good, grown-up debate to be seen. To these unnamed forumites, I say many thanks..! Your last sentence... Thank you very much "************************** One of 'the few'....!! You are most welcome. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are no climate change deniers in here from what I've seen. In fact, there really can't be any in the whole world, the climate changes, that is a fact, it is always has done. What you see though, is any who dares ask question it is very quickly labelled a 'climate change denier'. The more appropriate term would be "anthropomorphic climate change denier". It's just easy to shorten it. There are definitely one or two science deniers here. Then a whole bunch who swollow the bullshit fake doubt that the fossil fuels industry magics up. ********************************* Do you realise how peremptory your posts seem to be on any subject you choose to comment.....?? People's reasons for voting the way they do......, climate change 'science' discussion....., the 'ultimate' aim of the oil industry..... etc. I'm certainly NOT 'making stuff up' about you, as you have previously complained, nor do I 'dislike' you, as you have aimed at others here who reply against your views. I'm merely stating my opinion that you might have a little more respect towards the opinions of other contributors, is all. Incidentally, I really do enjoy certain other folks' opinions here, there is usually a good, grown-up debate to be seen. To these unnamed forumites, I say many thanks..! Just a whole post personal attack. Not even attempting to even vaguely discuss the topic. Do you ever address the points being made in threads, or are you purely here to personally attack and insult people you don't like? ****************************** Rubbish. I commented on the way you reply on a topic, which is relevant to ANY topical theme. I am perfectly entitled do so, as are you, as long as within the forum rules. If you came across as reasonable, then yes, I may well converse wirh you. That was an obervation I wrote against your posts, NOT a "personal attack". This seems to be a standard reply to anyone critical of your posts. From now on, I shall totally disregard anything you post here, without exception, as I imagine many others do. AND..... I accept your thanks for doing so, in advance. Good evening."  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are no climate change deniers in here from what I've seen. In fact, there really can't be any in the whole world, the climate changes, that is a fact, it is always has done. What you see though, is any who dares ask question it is very quickly labelled a 'climate change denier'. The more appropriate term would be "anthropomorphic climate change denier". It's just easy to shorten it. There are definitely one or two science deniers here. Then a whole bunch who swollow the bullshit fake doubt that the fossil fuels industry magics up. Don't forget those that swallow every last drop without a question. I did ask this earlier but I will put it to you again as a question to your last answer, can people question science and if they do should they be labeled a denier for doing so? I answered this already." When do you think it is okay to question science? Is it never, or is it when you don’t agree with or understand the approach? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are no climate change deniers in here from what I've seen. In fact, there really can't be any in the whole world, the climate changes, that is a fact, it is always has done. What you see though, is any who dares ask question it is very quickly labelled a 'climate change denier'. The more appropriate term would be "anthropomorphic climate change denier". It's just easy to shorten it. There are definitely one or two science deniers here. Then a whole bunch who swollow the bullshit fake doubt that the fossil fuels industry magics up. ********************************* Do you realise how peremptory your posts seem to be on any subject you choose to comment.....?? People's reasons for voting the way they do......, climate change 'science' discussion....., the 'ultimate' aim of the oil industry..... etc. I'm certainly NOT 'making stuff up' about you, as you have previously complained, nor do I 'dislike' you, as you have aimed at others here who reply against your views. I'm merely stating my opinion that you might have a little more respect towards the opinions of other contributors, is all. Incidentally, I really do enjoy certain other folks' opinions here, there is usually a good, grown-up debate to be seen. To these unnamed forumites, I say many thanks..! Just a whole post personal attack. Not even attempting to even vaguely discuss the topic. Do you ever address the points being made in threads, or are you purely here to personally attack and insult people you don't like?" I would like to add my view here, this wasn’t a whole post personally attacking you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I deny the climate deniers. Just like I deny GB news is a news outlet." Your point of view only? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I deny the climate deniers. Just like I deny GB news is a news outlet. Your point of view only?" GBeebies is a propaganda channel. Nothing more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I deny the climate deniers. Just like I deny GB news is a news outlet. Your point of view only? GBeebies is a propaganda channel. Nothing more. " Do they have a point of view? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I deny the climate deniers. Just like I deny GB news is a news outlet. Your point of view only? GBeebies is a propaganda channel. Nothing more. Do they have a point of view? " News isn’t about points of view. It’s about news. Ofcom have certainly taken repeated interest in the channel. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I deny the climate deniers. Just like I deny GB news is a news outlet. Your point of view only? GBeebies is a propaganda channel. Nothing more. Do they have a point of view? News isn’t about points of view. It’s about news. Ofcom have certainly taken repeated interest in the channel. " You said it wasn't a news channel, make your mind up.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I deny the climate deniers. Just like I deny GB news is a news outlet. Your point of view only? GBeebies is a propaganda channel. Nothing more. Do they have a point of view? News isn’t about points of view. It’s about news. Ofcom have certainly taken repeated interest in the channel. You said it wasn't a news channel, make your mind up...." It’s not a news channel. I never says it was. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I deny the climate deniers. Just like I deny GB news is a news outlet. Your point of view only? GBeebies is a propaganda channel. Nothing more. Do they have a point of view? News isn’t about points of view. It’s about news. Ofcom have certainly taken repeated interest in the channel. You said it wasn't a news channel, make your mind up.... It’s not a news channel. I never says it was." You do get confused at times.. So they have opinions and are allowed to have them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I deny the climate deniers. Just like I deny GB news is a news outlet. Your point of view only? GBeebies is a propaganda channel. Nothing more. Do they have a point of view? News isn’t about points of view. It’s about news. Ofcom have certainly taken repeated interest in the channel. You said it wasn't a news channel, make your mind up.... It’s not a news channel. I never says it was. You do get confused at times.. So they have opinions and are allowed to have them? " I’m not the one that’s confused. It’s not the job of a news channel to report their own opinions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I deny the climate deniers. Just like I deny GB news is a news outlet. Your point of view only? GBeebies is a propaganda channel. Nothing more. Do they have a point of view? News isn’t about points of view. It’s about news. Ofcom have certainly taken repeated interest in the channel. You said it wasn't a news channel, make your mind up.... It’s not a news channel. I never says it was. You do get confused at times.. So they have opinions and are allowed to have them? I’m not the one that’s confused. It’s not the job of a news channel to report their own opinions. " You said it wasn't a news channel so they can discuss their own opinions, unless you are wrong and it is a news channel. Which one is it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I deny the climate deniers. Just like I deny GB news is a news outlet. Your point of view only? GBeebies is a propaganda channel. Nothing more. Do they have a point of view? News isn’t about points of view. It’s about news. Ofcom have certainly taken repeated interest in the channel. You said it wasn't a news channel, make your mind up.... It’s not a news channel. I never says it was. You do get confused at times.. So they have opinions and are allowed to have them? I’m not the one that’s confused. It’s not the job of a news channel to report their own opinions. You said it wasn't a news channel so they can discuss their own opinions, unless you are wrong and it is a news channel. Which one is it? " Oh I see where you’ve given wrong. It’s called GB news, so they claim it is a news station. However, they voice their own propaganda - which is not what a news channel should be. They’re free to spout their nonsense, but they shouldn’t claim to be a news channel whilst they’re do so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I deny the climate deniers. Just like I deny GB news is a news outlet. Your point of view only? GBeebies is a propaganda channel. Nothing more. Do they have a point of view? News isn’t about points of view. It’s about news. Ofcom have certainly taken repeated interest in the channel. You said it wasn't a news channel, make your mind up.... It’s not a news channel. I never says it was. You do get confused at times.. So they have opinions and are allowed to have them? I’m not the one that’s confused. It’s not the job of a news channel to report their own opinions. You said it wasn't a news channel so they can discuss their own opinions, unless you are wrong and it is a news channel. Which one is it? Oh I see where you’ve given wrong. It’s called GB news, so they claim it is a news station. However, they voice their own propaganda - which is not what a news channel should be. They’re free to spout their nonsense, but they shouldn’t claim to be a news channel whilst they’re do so. " I've never watched GB News so no idea what they show but every single 'news publication' 'spouts nonsense' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I deny the climate deniers. Just like I deny GB news is a news outlet. Your point of view only? GBeebies is a propaganda channel. Nothing more. Do they have a point of view? News isn’t about points of view. It’s about news. Ofcom have certainly taken repeated interest in the channel. You said it wasn't a news channel, make your mind up.... It’s not a news channel. I never says it was. You do get confused at times.. So they have opinions and are allowed to have them? I’m not the one that’s confused. It’s not the job of a news channel to report their own opinions. You said it wasn't a news channel so they can discuss their own opinions, unless you are wrong and it is a news channel. Which one is it? Oh I see where you’ve given wrong. It’s called GB news, so they claim it is a news station. However, they voice their own propaganda - which is not what a news channel should be. They’re free to spout their nonsense, but they shouldn’t claim to be a news channel whilst they’re do so. I've never watched GB News so no idea what they show but every single 'news publication' 'spouts nonsense'" I haven't watched and I wouldn't go out my way to watch it either. From what I hear and read in here, it seems to attract more viewers from the left than the right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I haven't seen many on fab. But they still exist. Lots of them. Every time any city records a very cold day, they will come out and say, 'See. This is why I say global warming doesn't exist.'" To be fair, every unusual event is claimed as evidence of climate change, whether too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry, too windy, too calm, etc. It seems that there is no possibility of natural variation any more, it's all because of climate change. If the climate change lobby could stick to the idea that 'climate' is not the same as 'weather', we might all get a better understanding of what's happening. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I shall totally disregard anything you post here, without exception, as I imagine many others do. " Best news I've had all day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I haven't seen many on fab. But they still exist. Lots of them. Every time any city records a very cold day, they will come out and say, 'See. This is why I say global warming doesn't exist.' To be fair, every unusual event is claimed as evidence of climate change, whether too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry, too windy, too calm, etc. It seems that there is no possibility of natural variation any more, it's all because of climate change. If the climate change lobby could stick to the idea that 'climate' is not the same as 'weather', we might all get a better understanding of what's happening." Or you could just ignore the rhubarb and stick to the science. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are no climate change deniers in here from what I've seen. In fact, there really can't be any in the whole world, the climate changes, that is a fact, it is always has done. What you see though, is any who dares ask question it is very quickly labelled a 'climate change denier'. The more appropriate term would be "anthropomorphic climate change denier". It's just easy to shorten it. There are definitely one or two science deniers here. Then a whole bunch who swollow the bullshit fake doubt that the fossil fuels industry magics up." It may be easy to shorten but shortening isn't doing any favours. You should feed this back at your next meeting  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here? There will always be deniers, but there are also people who are not denying the climate is changing for the worst and things are unstable, but are questioning the modelling and data being used. Those people get full denier headlines for questioning the science. As well they should for "questioning the science" in any field. People aren’t allowed to question science? Of course. But it's moronic, unless they've conducted their own science that supercedes the existing understanding of climate science." I disagree with that statement. It sometimes takes a question from a person not so close to the detail to challenge the thinking, the stupid question so to speak. We often put people on pedestals giving them god like status when it comes to science, but we are all capable of making mistakes and missing the thing right under our noses. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I haven't seen many on fab. But they still exist. Lots of them. Every time any city records a very cold day, they will come out and say, 'See. This is why I say global warming doesn't exist.' To be fair, every unusual event is claimed as evidence of climate change, whether too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry, too windy, too calm, etc. It seems that there is no possibility of natural variation any more, it's all because of climate change. If the climate change lobby could stick to the idea that 'climate' is not the same as 'weather', we might all get a better understanding of what's happening." In my experience it’s the deniers who are first to say ‘global warming? It’s raining in July’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I haven't seen many on fab. But they still exist. Lots of them. Every time any city records a very cold day, they will come out and say, 'See. This is why I say global warming doesn't exist.' To be fair, every unusual event is claimed as evidence of climate change, whether too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry, too windy, too calm, etc. It seems that there is no possibility of natural variation any more, it's all because of climate change. If the climate change lobby could stick to the idea that 'climate' is not the same as 'weather', we might all get a better understanding of what's happening. In my experience it’s the deniers who are first to say ‘global warming? It’s raining in July’" Behave, heavy rainfall in the summer, a flooded village and it is a climate change headline | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here? There will always be deniers, but there are also people who are not denying the climate is changing for the worst and things are unstable, but are questioning the modelling and data being used. Those people get full denier headlines for questioning the science. As well they should for "questioning the science" in any field. People aren’t allowed to question science? Of course. But it's moronic, unless they've conducted their own science that supercedes the existing understanding of climate science. I disagree with that statement. It sometimes takes a question from a person not so close to the detail to challenge the thinking, the stupid question so to speak. We often put people on pedestals giving them god like status when it comes to science, but we are all capable of making mistakes and missing the thing right under our noses. " Yes. That's science though. Questioning it on its scientific merits is exactly what science is about. This is participating in scientific method. Just saying "we had a cold winter" or whatever, is just utter nonsense level questioning. No one needs to put science on a pedestal. The whole point of the discipline is that you can choose to 'understand' what's going on, it removes the need for 'belief'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here? There will always be deniers, but there are also people who are not denying the climate is changing for the worst and things are unstable, but are questioning the modelling and data being used. Those people get full denier headlines for questioning the science. As well they should for "questioning the science" in any field. People aren’t allowed to question science? Of course. But it's moronic, unless they've conducted their own science that supercedes the existing understanding of climate science. I disagree with that statement. It sometimes takes a question from a person not so close to the detail to challenge the thinking, the stupid question so to speak. We often put people on pedestals giving them god like status when it comes to science, but we are all capable of making mistakes and missing the thing right under our noses. Yes. That's science though. Questioning it on its scientific merits is exactly what science is about. This is participating in scientific method. Just saying "we had a cold winter" or whatever, is just utter nonsense level questioning. No one needs to put science on a pedestal. The whole point of the discipline is that you can choose to 'understand' what's going on, it removes the need for 'belief'. " We certainly think about things so differently. I haven't entertained for one second a person who claims a cold summer is proof the climate is not changing as a person who is challenging science.. I can miss out the unnecessary noisy bits, maybe that is why we so often disagree, you are starting from a very different point in your thinking. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here? There will always be deniers, but there are also people who are not denying the climate is changing for the worst and things are unstable, but are questioning the modelling and data being used. Those people get full denier headlines for questioning the science. As well they should for "questioning the science" in any field. People aren’t allowed to question science? Of course. But it's moronic, unless they've conducted their own science that supercedes the existing understanding of climate science. I disagree with that statement. It sometimes takes a question from a person not so close to the detail to challenge the thinking, the stupid question so to speak. We often put people on pedestals giving them god like status when it comes to science, but we are all capable of making mistakes and missing the thing right under our noses. Yes. That's science though. Questioning it on its scientific merits is exactly what science is about. This is participating in scientific method. Just saying "we had a cold winter" or whatever, is just utter nonsense level questioning. No one needs to put science on a pedestal. The whole point of the discipline is that you can choose to 'understand' what's going on, it removes the need for 'belief'. We certainly think about things so differently. I haven't entertained for one second a person who claims a cold summer is proof the climate is not changing as a person who is challenging science.. I can miss out the unnecessary noisy bits, maybe that is why we so often disagree, you are starting from a very different point in your thinking. " Maybe. The point is, challenging science with new data and new theories is excellent and makes sense. Challenging it with nonsense from Twitter. Is, well, nonsense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here? There will always be deniers, but there are also people who are not denying the climate is changing for the worst and things are unstable, but are questioning the modelling and data being used. Those people get full denier headlines for questioning the science. As well they should for "questioning the science" in any field. People aren’t allowed to question science? Of course. But it's moronic, unless they've conducted their own science that supercedes the existing understanding of climate science. I disagree with that statement. It sometimes takes a question from a person not so close to the detail to challenge the thinking, the stupid question so to speak. We often put people on pedestals giving them god like status when it comes to science, but we are all capable of making mistakes and missing the thing right under our noses. Yes. That's science though. Questioning it on its scientific merits is exactly what science is about. This is participating in scientific method. Just saying "we had a cold winter" or whatever, is just utter nonsense level questioning. No one needs to put science on a pedestal. The whole point of the discipline is that you can choose to 'understand' what's going on, it removes the need for 'belief'. We certainly think about things so differently. I haven't entertained for one second a person who claims a cold summer is proof the climate is not changing as a person who is challenging science.. I can miss out the unnecessary noisy bits, maybe that is why we so often disagree, you are starting from a very different point in your thinking. Maybe. The point is, challenging science with new data and new theories is excellent and makes sense. Challenging it with nonsense from Twitter. Is, well, nonsense. " Again we look at things differently. If someone takes information they have read regardless of source and start to talk about that information, this is good in my book. If they are a country mile away from what is acknowledged as being true, it gives them a chance to explore this and work it out themselves. Shutting them down with one liners serves only the ego of the person closing them down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here? There will always be deniers, but there are also people who are not denying the climate is changing for the worst and things are unstable, but are questioning the modelling and data being used. Those people get full denier headlines for questioning the science. As well they should for "questioning the science" in any field. People aren’t allowed to question science? Of course. But it's moronic, unless they've conducted their own science that supercedes the existing understanding of climate science. I disagree with that statement. It sometimes takes a question from a person not so close to the detail to challenge the thinking, the stupid question so to speak. We often put people on pedestals giving them god like status when it comes to science, but we are all capable of making mistakes and missing the thing right under our noses. Yes. That's science though. Questioning it on its scientific merits is exactly what science is about. This is participating in scientific method. Just saying "we had a cold winter" or whatever, is just utter nonsense level questioning. No one needs to put science on a pedestal. The whole point of the discipline is that you can choose to 'understand' what's going on, it removes the need for 'belief'. We certainly think about things so differently. I haven't entertained for one second a person who claims a cold summer is proof the climate is not changing as a person who is challenging science.. I can miss out the unnecessary noisy bits, maybe that is why we so often disagree, you are starting from a very different point in your thinking. Maybe. The point is, challenging science with new data and new theories is excellent and makes sense. Challenging it with nonsense from Twitter. Is, well, nonsense. Again we look at things differently. If someone takes information they have read regardless of source and start to talk about that information, this is good in my book. If they are a country mile away from what is acknowledged as being true, it gives them a chance to explore this and work it out themselves. Shutting them down with one liners serves only the ego of the person closing them down. " I disagree. If someone gets their (mis)information from infowars/GB News/Twitter, then they get stuck going down a rabbit hole of bollocks, and then completely ignore real science, verified, peer reviewed and demonstratable. You see it on here often. It was the same with COVID conspiracies. Once people start believing something based on emotions over logic, it's very hard to come back from that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I haven't seen many on fab. But they still exist. Lots of them. Every time any city records a very cold day, they will come out and say, 'See. This is why I say global warming doesn't exist.' To be fair, every unusual event is claimed as evidence of climate change, whether too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry, too windy, too calm, etc. It seems that there is no possibility of natural variation any more, it's all because of climate change. If the climate change lobby could stick to the idea that 'climate' is not the same as 'weather', we might all get a better understanding of what's happening. In my experience it’s the deniers who are first to say ‘global warming? It’s raining in July’ Behave, heavy rainfall in the summer, a flooded village and it is a climate change headline " I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I haven't seen many on fab. But they still exist. Lots of them. Every time any city records a very cold day, they will come out and say, 'See. This is why I say global warming doesn't exist.' To be fair, every unusual event is claimed as evidence of climate change, whether too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry, too windy, too calm, etc. It seems that there is no possibility of natural variation any more, it's all because of climate change. If the climate change lobby could stick to the idea that 'climate' is not the same as 'weather', we might all get a better understanding of what's happening. In my experience it’s the deniers who are first to say ‘global warming? It’s raining in July’ Behave, heavy rainfall in the summer, a flooded village and it is a climate change headline I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you. " You need to understand a lot more before you try explanations... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I haven't seen many on fab. But they still exist. Lots of them. Every time any city records a very cold day, they will come out and say, 'See. This is why I say global warming doesn't exist.' To be fair, every unusual event is claimed as evidence of climate change, whether too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry, too windy, too calm, etc. It seems that there is no possibility of natural variation any more, it's all because of climate change. If the climate change lobby could stick to the idea that 'climate' is not the same as 'weather', we might all get a better understanding of what's happening. In my experience it’s the deniers who are first to say ‘global warming? It’s raining in July’ Behave, heavy rainfall in the summer, a flooded village and it is a climate change headline I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you. You need to understand a lot more before you try explanations..." Climate change causing a village to flood due to rising sea levels is not the same as a thick fucker saying ‘it’s raining in July therefor climate change doesn’t exist’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I haven't seen many on fab. But they still exist. Lots of them. Every time any city records a very cold day, they will come out and say, 'See. This is why I say global warming doesn't exist.' To be fair, every unusual event is claimed as evidence of climate change, whether too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry, too windy, too calm, etc. It seems that there is no possibility of natural variation any more, it's all because of climate change. If the climate change lobby could stick to the idea that 'climate' is not the same as 'weather', we might all get a better understanding of what's happening. In my experience it’s the deniers who are first to say ‘global warming? It’s raining in July’ Behave, heavy rainfall in the summer, a flooded village and it is a climate change headline I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you. You need to understand a lot more before you try explanations... Climate change causing a village to flood due to rising sea levels is not the same as a thick fucker saying ‘it’s raining in July therefor climate change doesn’t exist’ " And therefore with it being a major headline their mistake around climate change is for all too see.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there really any need for 'moronic' & 'thick fucker'? If we want people to actually listen, we need to stop with insulting them ""Moronic" was used to describe a behaviour. Not to insult anyone. If you're really worried about people being insulted, you should try questioning the Tories/brexit/anti-science people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there really any need for 'moronic' & 'thick fucker'? If we want people to actually listen, we need to stop with insulting them
"Moronic" was used to describe a behaviour. Not to insult anyone.
If you're really worried about people being insulted, you should try questioning the Tories/brexit/anti-science people. "Whether it was used to describe behaviour or not, it's aimed at any particular person who 'questions the science', that's personal, so insulting. I see way more people on left being insulting round here than I do thosebon the right. I'm not worried about people being insulted, I just think those who want people to listen should try to have open, honest discussion instead of turning to insults. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there really any need for 'moronic' & 'thick fucker'? If we want people to actually listen, we need to stop with insulting them
"Moronic" was used to describe a behaviour. Not to insult anyone.
If you're really worried about people being insulted, you should try questioning the Tories/brexit/anti-science people.
Whether it was used to describe behaviour or not, it's aimed at any particular person who 'questions the science', that's personal, so insulting.
I see way more people on left being insulting round here than I do thosebon the right.
I'm not worried about people being insulted, I just think those who want people to listen should try to have open, honest discussion instead of turning to insults."It's not aimed at someone who questions the science. It's aimed at the behaviour of questioning the science with nonsense questions. It's different. I'm well aware no one on here listens. As was pointed out to me by one of the serial personal-insulters, no one listens to me anyway. So. Shrug emoji. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there really any need for 'moronic' & 'thick fucker'? If we want people to actually listen, we need to stop with insulting them
"Moronic" was used to describe a behaviour. Not to insult anyone.
If you're really worried about people being insulted, you should try questioning the Tories/brexit/anti-science people.
Whether it was used to describe behaviour or not, it's aimed at any particular person who 'questions the science', that's personal, so insulting.
I see way more people on left being insulting round here than I do thosebon the right.
I'm not worried about people being insulted, I just think those who want people to listen should try to have open, honest discussion instead of turning to insults.
It's not aimed at someone who questions the science. It's aimed at the behaviour of questioning the science with nonsense questions. It's different.
I'm well aware no one on here listens. As was pointed out to me by one of the serial personal-insulters, no one listens to me anyway. So. Shrug emoji. ""There will always be deniers, but there are also people who are not denying the climate is changing for the worst and things are unstable, but are questioning the modelling and data being used. Those people get full denier headlines for questioning the science. 'As well they should for "questioning the science" in any field.' People aren’t allowed to question science? 'Of course. But it's moronic, unless they've conducted their own science that supercedes the existing understanding of climate science.'" You sure about that? It's hard to keep track when you change your tract all the time | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there really any need for 'moronic' & 'thick fucker'? If we want people to actually listen, we need to stop with insulting them
"Moronic" was used to describe a behaviour. Not to insult anyone.
If you're really worried about people being insulted, you should try questioning the Tories/brexit/anti-science people.
Whether it was used to describe behaviour or not, it's aimed at any particular person who 'questions the science', that's personal, so insulting.
I see way more people on left being insulting round here than I do thosebon the right.
I'm not worried about people being insulted, I just think those who want people to listen should try to have open, honest discussion instead of turning to insults.
It's not aimed at someone who questions the science. It's aimed at the behaviour of questioning the science with nonsense questions. It's different.
I'm well aware no one on here listens. As was pointed out to me by one of the serial personal-insulters, no one listens to me anyway. So. Shrug emoji.
"There will always be deniers, but there are also people who are not denying the climate is changing for the worst and things are unstable, but are questioning the modelling and data being used.
Those people get full denier headlines for questioning the science.
'As well they should for "questioning the science" in any field.'
People aren’t allowed to question science?
'Of course. But it's moronic, unless they've conducted their own science that supercedes the existing understanding of climate science.'"
You sure about that? It's hard to keep track when you change your tract all the time"Yup. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there really any need for 'moronic' & 'thick fucker'? If we want people to actually listen, we need to stop with insulting them
"Moronic" was used to describe a behaviour. Not to insult anyone.
If you're really worried about people being insulted, you should try questioning the Tories/brexit/anti-science people.
Whether it was used to describe behaviour or not, it's aimed at any particular person who 'questions the science', that's personal, so insulting.
I see way more people on left being insulting round here than I do thosebon the right.
I'm not worried about people being insulted, I just think those who want people to listen should try to have open, honest discussion instead of turning to insults.
It's not aimed at someone who questions the science. It's aimed at the behaviour of questioning the science with nonsense questions. It's different.
I'm well aware no one on here listens. As was pointed out to me by one of the serial personal-insulters, no one listens to me anyway. So. Shrug emoji.
"There will always be deniers, but there are also people who are not denying the climate is changing for the worst and things are unstable, but are questioning the modelling and data being used.
Those people get full denier headlines for questioning the science.
'As well they should for "questioning the science" in any field.'
People aren’t allowed to question science?
'Of course. But it's moronic, unless they've conducted their own science that supercedes the existing understanding of climate science.'"
You sure about that? It's hard to keep track when you change your tract all the time
Yup."I'm not sure what you're actually saying. Are you saying: A - as well they should for questioning the science in any field. B - it's moronic unless they've conducted their own science. C - it's aimed at the behaviour of questioning the science with nonsense questions. D. can't actually remember. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there really any need for 'moronic' & 'thick fucker'? If we want people to actually listen, we need to stop with insulting them
"Moronic" was used to describe a behaviour. Not to insult anyone.
If you're really worried about people being insulted, you should try questioning the Tories/brexit/anti-science people.
Whether it was used to describe behaviour or not, it's aimed at any particular person who 'questions the science', that's personal, so insulting.
I see way more people on left being insulting round here than I do thosebon the right.
I'm not worried about people being insulted, I just think those who want people to listen should try to have open, honest discussion instead of turning to insults.
It's not aimed at someone who questions the science. It's aimed at the behaviour of questioning the science with nonsense questions. It's different.
I'm well aware no one on here listens. As was pointed out to me by one of the serial personal-insulters, no one listens to me anyway. So. Shrug emoji.
"There will always be deniers, but there are also people who are not denying the climate is changing for the worst and things are unstable, but are questioning the modelling and data being used.
Those people get full denier headlines for questioning the science.
'As well they should for "questioning the science" in any field.'
People aren’t allowed to question science?
'Of course. But it's moronic, unless they've conducted their own science that supercedes the existing understanding of climate science.'"
You sure about that? It's hard to keep track when you change your tract all the time
Yup.
I'm not sure what you're actually saying.
Are you saying:
A - as well they should for questioning the science in any field.
B - it's moronic unless they've conducted their own science.
C - it's aimed at the behaviour of questioning the science with nonsense questions.
D. can't actually remember."C. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there really any need for 'moronic' & 'thick fucker'? If we want people to actually listen, we need to stop with insulting them
"Moronic" was used to describe a behaviour. Not to insult anyone.
If you're really worried about people being insulted, you should try questioning the Tories/brexit/anti-science people.
Whether it was used to describe behaviour or not, it's aimed at any particular person who 'questions the science', that's personal, so insulting.
I see way more people on left being insulting round here than I do thosebon the right.
I'm not worried about people being insulted, I just think those who want people to listen should try to have open, honest discussion instead of turning to insults.
It's not aimed at someone who questions the science. It's aimed at the behaviour of questioning the science with nonsense questions. It's different.
I'm well aware no one on here listens. As was pointed out to me by one of the serial personal-insulters, no one listens to me anyway. So. Shrug emoji.
"There will always be deniers, but there are also people who are not denying the climate is changing for the worst and things are unstable, but are questioning the modelling and data being used.
Those people get full denier headlines for questioning the science.
'As well they should for "questioning the science" in any field.'
People aren’t allowed to question science?
'Of course. But it's moronic, unless they've conducted their own science that supercedes the existing understanding of climate science.'"
You sure about that? It's hard to keep track when you change your tract all the time
Yup.
I'm not sure what you're actually saying.
Are you saying:
A - as well they should for questioning the science in any field.
B - it's moronic unless they've conducted their own science.
C - it's aimed at the behaviour of questioning the science with nonsense questions.
D. can't actually remember.
C."So you're other views aren't actually representative of your thought on the matter? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there really any need for 'moronic' & 'thick fucker'? If we want people to actually listen, we need to stop with insulting them
"Moronic" was used to describe a behaviour. Not to insult anyone.
If you're really worried about people being insulted, you should try questioning the Tories/brexit/anti-science people.
Whether it was used to describe behaviour or not, it's aimed at any particular person who 'questions the science', that's personal, so insulting.
I see way more people on left being insulting round here than I do thosebon the right.
I'm not worried about people being insulted, I just think those who want people to listen should try to have open, honest discussion instead of turning to insults.
It's not aimed at someone who questions the science. It's aimed at the behaviour of questioning the science with nonsense questions. It's different.
I'm well aware no one on here listens. As was pointed out to me by one of the serial personal-insulters, no one listens to me anyway. So. Shrug emoji.
"There will always be deniers, but there are also people who are not denying the climate is changing for the worst and things are unstable, but are questioning the modelling and data being used.
Those people get full denier headlines for questioning the science.
'As well they should for "questioning the science" in any field.'
People aren’t allowed to question science?
'Of course. But it's moronic, unless they've conducted their own science that supercedes the existing understanding of climate science.'"
You sure about that? It's hard to keep track when you change your tract all the time
Yup.
I'm not sure what you're actually saying.
Are you saying:
A - as well they should for questioning the science in any field.
B - it's moronic unless they've conducted their own science.
C - it's aimed at the behaviour of questioning the science with nonsense questions.
D. can't actually remember.
C.
So you're other views aren't actually representative of your thought on the matter?"The other things are comments from different contexts that you shoehorned into the question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there really any need for 'moronic' & 'thick fucker'? If we want people to actually listen, we need to stop with insulting them
"Moronic" was used to describe a behaviour. Not to insult anyone.
If you're really worried about people being insulted, you should try questioning the Tories/brexit/anti-science people.
Whether it was used to describe behaviour or not, it's aimed at any particular person who 'questions the science', that's personal, so insulting.
I see way more people on left being insulting round here than I do thosebon the right.
I'm not worried about people being insulted, I just think those who want people to listen should try to have open, honest discussion instead of turning to insults.
It's not aimed at someone who questions the science. It's aimed at the behaviour of questioning the science with nonsense questions. It's different.
I'm well aware no one on here listens. As was pointed out to me by one of the serial personal-insulters, no one listens to me anyway. So. Shrug emoji.
"There will always be deniers, but there are also people who are not denying the climate is changing for the worst and things are unstable, but are questioning the modelling and data being used.
Those people get full denier headlines for questioning the science.
'As well they should for "questioning the science" in any field.'
People aren’t allowed to question science?
'Of course. But it's moronic, unless they've conducted their own science that supercedes the existing understanding of climate science.'"
You sure about that? It's hard to keep track when you change your tract all the time
Yup.
I'm not sure what you're actually saying.
Are you saying:
A - as well they should for questioning the science in any field.
B - it's moronic unless they've conducted their own science.
C - it's aimed at the behaviour of questioning the science with nonsense questions.
D. can't actually remember.
C.
So you're other views aren't actually representative of your thought on the matter?
The other things are comments from different contexts that you shoehorned into the question. "
They're all regards science. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I mean Jim from Brentwood is more than welcome to use his his D in GCSE science to question actual climate change experts, and he’s more than welcome to watch YouTube videos that support his view, but I personally don’t believe his argument should receive equal weighting. " I really do think you and Johnny are missing the point here.. Do you think it is better for a person to not ask questions and feel they can ask questions that will get a response to either correct or support the ask? Or do you think it is better that people who are deemed to be less knowledgable be quiet and do agree with what they are being told without question? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I mean Jim from Brentwood is more than welcome to use his his D in GCSE science to question actual climate change experts, and he’s more than welcome to watch YouTube videos that support his view, but I personally don’t believe his argument should receive equal weighting. I really do think you and Johnny are missing the point here.. Do you think it is better for a person to not ask questions and feel they can ask questions that will get a response to either correct or support the ask? Or do you think it is better that people who are deemed to be less knowledgable be quiet and do agree with what they are being told without question?" I’m all for people asking questions, none of us are experts in every field - or indeed any field - we’re always learning. Where we have a problem is when the YouTube scientists (or flat earthers, or covidiots) dismiss actual evidence when it is presented in response to them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I mean Jim from Brentwood is more than welcome to use his his D in GCSE science to question actual climate change experts, and he’s more than welcome to watch YouTube videos that support his view, but I personally don’t believe his argument should receive equal weighting. I really do think you and Johnny are missing the point here.. Do you think it is better for a person to not ask questions and feel they can ask questions that will get a response to either correct or support the ask? Or do you think it is better that people who are deemed to be less knowledgable be quiet and do agree with what they are being told without question?" It's better if they make an attempt to understand the subject matter. That will enable them to ask sensible questions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"On this topic - the internet experts - I had a recent discussion on social media regarding train strikes: Someone said sack all the drivers and replace them - I pointed out that it was against employment law, and we’re it not, it would still take a year to recruit and train the replacements, assuming that you could find people to train them. They then said it doesn’t matter, since trains will be driverless in the next decade - I pointed out that mainline driverless trains won’t exist beyond closed networks for at least the next 40-50 years because of budget, complexity trade union negotiations, existing rolling stock not being equipped etc. I was told that I was an idiot who didn’t know what he was talking about - despite being the one with 20 years+ experience of driving, training and managing drivers. You can’t help some people, because they have no interest in learning." They might have ended the conversation that way because they backed themselves into a corner and knew there was no way out. however if they reflect on that conversation some of what you said might have opened their eyes. As long as you didn't go off the topic of driving trains | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I deny the climate deniers. Just like I deny GB news is a news outlet. Your point of view only? GBeebies is a propaganda channel. Nothing more. Do they have a point of view? News isn’t about points of view. It’s about news. Ofcom have certainly taken repeated interest in the channel. You said it wasn't a news channel, make your mind up.... It’s not a news channel. I never says it was. You do get confused at times.. So they have opinions and are allowed to have them? I’m not the one that’s confused. It’s not the job of a news channel to report their own opinions. You said it wasn't a news channel so they can discuss their own opinions, unless you are wrong and it is a news channel. Which one is it? Oh I see where you’ve given wrong. It’s called GB news, so they claim it is a news station. However, they voice their own propaganda - which is not what a news channel should be. They’re free to spout their nonsense, but they shouldn’t claim to be a news channel whilst they’re do so. I've never watched GB News so no idea what they show but every single 'news publication' 'spouts nonsense' I haven't watched and I wouldn't go out my way to watch it either. From what I hear and read in here, it seems to attract more viewers from the left than the right. " I dip into it now and again. I prefer to have varied news sources as it helps see things from different angles. I do use the BBC more than others on the whole but not exclusively. Have seen some good debates on GB news and everyone is allowed to put their point of view without interruptions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I deny the climate deniers. Just like I deny GB news is a news outlet. Your point of view only? GBeebies is a propaganda channel. Nothing more. Do they have a point of view? News isn’t about points of view. It’s about news. Ofcom have certainly taken repeated interest in the channel. You said it wasn't a news channel, make your mind up.... It’s not a news channel. I never says it was. You do get confused at times.. So they have opinions and are allowed to have them? I’m not the one that’s confused. It’s not the job of a news channel to report their own opinions. You said it wasn't a news channel so they can discuss their own opinions, unless you are wrong and it is a news channel. Which one is it? Oh I see where you’ve given wrong. It’s called GB news, so they claim it is a news station. However, they voice their own propaganda - which is not what a news channel should be. They’re free to spout their nonsense, but they shouldn’t claim to be a news channel whilst they’re do so. I've never watched GB News so no idea what they show but every single 'news publication' 'spouts nonsense' I haven't watched and I wouldn't go out my way to watch it either. From what I hear and read in here, it seems to attract more viewers from the left than the right. I dip into it now and again. I prefer to have varied news sources as it helps see things from different angles. I do use the BBC more than others on the whole but not exclusively. Have seen some good debates on GB news and everyone is allowed to put their point of view without interruptions. " That is good to know
I usually get the left wing view of it, I’m unsure whether they are glued to the screen so they can get very angry or if they are simply regurgitating sound bites | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I deny the climate deniers. Just like I deny GB news is a news outlet. Your point of view only? GBeebies is a propaganda channel. Nothing more. Do they have a point of view? News isn’t about points of view. It’s about news. Ofcom have certainly taken repeated interest in the channel. You said it wasn't a news channel, make your mind up.... It’s not a news channel. I never says it was. You do get confused at times.. So they have opinions and are allowed to have them? I’m not the one that’s confused. It’s not the job of a news channel to report their own opinions. You said it wasn't a news channel so they can discuss their own opinions, unless you are wrong and it is a news channel. Which one is it? Oh I see where you’ve given wrong. It’s called GB news, so they claim it is a news station. However, they voice their own propaganda - which is not what a news channel should be. They’re free to spout their nonsense, but they shouldn’t claim to be a news channel whilst they’re do so. I've never watched GB News so no idea what they show but every single 'news publication' 'spouts nonsense' I haven't watched and I wouldn't go out my way to watch it either. From what I hear and read in here, it seems to attract more viewers from the left than the right. I dip into it now and again. I prefer to have varied news sources as it helps see things from different angles. I do use the BBC more than others on the whole but not exclusively. Have seen some good debates on GB news and everyone is allowed to put their point of view without interruptions. " Varied as in the scientific view and the unscientific view? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I haven't seen many on fab. But they still exist. Lots of them. Every time any city records a very cold day, they will come out and say, 'See. This is why I say global warming doesn't exist.' To be fair, every unusual event is claimed as evidence of climate change, whether too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry, too windy, too calm, etc. It seems that there is no possibility of natural variation any more, it's all because of climate change. If the climate change lobby could stick to the idea that 'climate' is not the same as 'weather', we might all get a better understanding of what's happening." Agree with you. The hyperbolic idiots among the climate change activists who use an individual weather incident as some kind of evidence of climate change do as much damage to the movement as the climate change deniers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I deny the climate deniers. Just like I deny GB news is a news outlet. Your point of view only? GBeebies is a propaganda channel. Nothing more. Do they have a point of view? News isn’t about points of view. It’s about news. Ofcom have certainly taken repeated interest in the channel. You said it wasn't a news channel, make your mind up.... It’s not a news channel. I never says it was. You do get confused at times.. So they have opinions and are allowed to have them? I’m not the one that’s confused. It’s not the job of a news channel to report their own opinions. You said it wasn't a news channel so they can discuss their own opinions, unless you are wrong and it is a news channel. Which one is it? Oh I see where you’ve given wrong. It’s called GB news, so they claim it is a news station. However, they voice their own propaganda - which is not what a news channel should be. They’re free to spout their nonsense, but they shouldn’t claim to be a news channel whilst they’re do so. I've never watched GB News so no idea what they show but every single 'news publication' 'spouts nonsense' I haven't watched and I wouldn't go out my way to watch it either. From what I hear and read in here, it seems to attract more viewers from the left than the right. I dip into it now and again. I prefer to have varied news sources as it helps see things from different angles. I do use the BBC more than others on the whole but not exclusively. Have seen some good debates on GB news and everyone is allowed to put their point of view without interruptions. Varied as in the scientific view and the unscientific view?" I have not managed to catch a debate that is to do with things like the climate so could not answer that specific question with any accuracy. I can only comment on the bits I have seen as I have done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I deny the climate deniers. Just like I deny GB news is a news outlet. Your point of view only? GBeebies is a propaganda channel. Nothing more. Do they have a point of view? News isn’t about points of view. It’s about news. Ofcom have certainly taken repeated interest in the channel. You said it wasn't a news channel, make your mind up.... It’s not a news channel. I never says it was. You do get confused at times.. So they have opinions and are allowed to have them? I’m not the one that’s confused. It’s not the job of a news channel to report their own opinions. You said it wasn't a news channel so they can discuss their own opinions, unless you are wrong and it is a news channel. Which one is it? Oh I see where you’ve given wrong. It’s called GB news, so they claim it is a news station. However, they voice their own propaganda - which is not what a news channel should be. They’re free to spout their nonsense, but they shouldn’t claim to be a news channel whilst they’re do so. I've never watched GB News so no idea what they show but every single 'news publication' 'spouts nonsense' I haven't watched and I wouldn't go out my way to watch it either. From what I hear and read in here, it seems to attract more viewers from the left than the right. I dip into it now and again. I prefer to have varied news sources as it helps see things from different angles. I do use the BBC more than others on the whole but not exclusively. Have seen some good debates on GB news and everyone is allowed to put their point of view without interruptions. Varied as in the scientific view and the unscientific view? I have not managed to catch a debate that is to do with things like the climate so could not answer that specific question with any accuracy. I can only comment on the bits I have seen as I have done." I mean, what varied views do prefer? With scientific issues, like climate change. There is only one view that's important, that's the scientific one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I deny the climate deniers. Just like I deny GB news is a news outlet. Your point of view only? GBeebies is a propaganda channel. Nothing more. Do they have a point of view? News isn’t about points of view. It’s about news. Ofcom have certainly taken repeated interest in the channel. You said it wasn't a news channel, make your mind up.... It’s not a news channel. I never says it was. You do get confused at times.. So they have opinions and are allowed to have them? I’m not the one that’s confused. It’s not the job of a news channel to report their own opinions. You said it wasn't a news channel so they can discuss their own opinions, unless you are wrong and it is a news channel. Which one is it? Oh I see where you’ve given wrong. It’s called GB news, so they claim it is a news station. However, they voice their own propaganda - which is not what a news channel should be. They’re free to spout their nonsense, but they shouldn’t claim to be a news channel whilst they’re do so. I've never watched GB News so no idea what they show but every single 'news publication' 'spouts nonsense' I haven't watched and I wouldn't go out my way to watch it either. From what I hear and read in here, it seems to attract more viewers from the left than the right. I dip into it now and again. I prefer to have varied news sources as it helps see things from different angles. I do use the BBC more than others on the whole but not exclusively. Have seen some good debates on GB news and everyone is allowed to put their point of view without interruptions. Varied as in the scientific view and the unscientific view? I have not managed to catch a debate that is to do with things like the climate so could not answer that specific question with any accuracy. I can only comment on the bits I have seen as I have done. I mean, what varied views do prefer? With scientific issues, like climate change. There is only one view that's important, that's the scientific one. " How do you know that is not happening on GB news, scientific data being discussed by scientists? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I deny the climate deniers. Just like I deny GB news is a news outlet. Your point of view only? GBeebies is a propaganda channel. Nothing more. Do they have a point of view? News isn’t about points of view. It’s about news. Ofcom have certainly taken repeated interest in the channel. You said it wasn't a news channel, make your mind up.... It’s not a news channel. I never says it was. You do get confused at times.. So they have opinions and are allowed to have them? I’m not the one that’s confused. It’s not the job of a news channel to report their own opinions. You said it wasn't a news channel so they can discuss their own opinions, unless you are wrong and it is a news channel. Which one is it? Oh I see where you’ve given wrong. It’s called GB news, so they claim it is a news station. However, they voice their own propaganda - which is not what a news channel should be. They’re free to spout their nonsense, but they shouldn’t claim to be a news channel whilst they’re do so. I've never watched GB News so no idea what they show but every single 'news publication' 'spouts nonsense' I haven't watched and I wouldn't go out my way to watch it either. From what I hear and read in here, it seems to attract more viewers from the left than the right. I dip into it now and again. I prefer to have varied news sources as it helps see things from different angles. I do use the BBC more than others on the whole but not exclusively. Have seen some good debates on GB news and everyone is allowed to put their point of view without interruptions. Varied as in the scientific view and the unscientific view? I have not managed to catch a debate that is to do with things like the climate so could not answer that specific question with any accuracy. I can only comment on the bits I have seen as I have done. I mean, what varied views do prefer? With scientific issues, like climate change. There is only one view that's important, that's the scientific one. How do you know that is not happening on GB news, scientific data being discussed by scientists?" I don't. But the channel is hardly known for being even vaguely connected to the real world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I deny the climate deniers. Just like I deny GB news is a news outlet. Your point of view only? GBeebies is a propaganda channel. Nothing more. Do they have a point of view? News isn’t about points of view. It’s about news. Ofcom have certainly taken repeated interest in the channel. You said it wasn't a news channel, make your mind up.... It’s not a news channel. I never says it was. You do get confused at times.. So they have opinions and are allowed to have them? I’m not the one that’s confused. It’s not the job of a news channel to report their own opinions. You said it wasn't a news channel so they can discuss their own opinions, unless you are wrong and it is a news channel. Which one is it? Oh I see where you’ve given wrong. It’s called GB news, so they claim it is a news station. However, they voice their own propaganda - which is not what a news channel should be. They’re free to spout their nonsense, but they shouldn’t claim to be a news channel whilst they’re do so. I've never watched GB News so no idea what they show but every single 'news publication' 'spouts nonsense' I haven't watched and I wouldn't go out my way to watch it either. From what I hear and read in here, it seems to attract more viewers from the left than the right. I dip into it now and again. I prefer to have varied news sources as it helps see things from different angles. I do use the BBC more than others on the whole but not exclusively. Have seen some good debates on GB news and everyone is allowed to put their point of view without interruptions. Varied as in the scientific view and the unscientific view? I have not managed to catch a debate that is to do with things like the climate so could not answer that specific question with any accuracy. I can only comment on the bits I have seen as I have done. I mean, what varied views do prefer? With scientific issues, like climate change. There is only one view that's important, that's the scientific one. How do you know that is not happening on GB news, scientific data being discussed by scientists? I don't. But the channel is hardly known for being even vaguely connected to the real world. " I don’t know how to respond to that, best I can come up with is maybe try watching it before rubbishing it? I think that would add weight to your views, especially after what you said about people who listen to conspiracy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I deny the climate deniers. Just like I deny GB news is a news outlet. Your point of view only? GBeebies is a propaganda channel. Nothing more. Do they have a point of view? News isn’t about points of view. It’s about news. Ofcom have certainly taken repeated interest in the channel. You said it wasn't a news channel, make your mind up.... It’s not a news channel. I never says it was. You do get confused at times.. So they have opinions and are allowed to have them? I’m not the one that’s confused. It’s not the job of a news channel to report their own opinions. You said it wasn't a news channel so they can discuss their own opinions, unless you are wrong and it is a news channel. Which one is it? Oh I see where you’ve given wrong. It’s called GB news, so they claim it is a news station. However, they voice their own propaganda - which is not what a news channel should be. They’re free to spout their nonsense, but they shouldn’t claim to be a news channel whilst they’re do so. I've never watched GB News so no idea what they show but every single 'news publication' 'spouts nonsense' I haven't watched and I wouldn't go out my way to watch it either. From what I hear and read in here, it seems to attract more viewers from the left than the right. I dip into it now and again. I prefer to have varied news sources as it helps see things from different angles. I do use the BBC more than others on the whole but not exclusively. Have seen some good debates on GB news and everyone is allowed to put their point of view without interruptions. Varied as in the scientific view and the unscientific view? I have not managed to catch a debate that is to do with things like the climate so could not answer that specific question with any accuracy. I can only comment on the bits I have seen as I have done. I mean, what varied views do prefer? With scientific issues, like climate change. There is only one view that's important, that's the scientific one. How do you know that is not happening on GB news, scientific data being discussed by scientists? I don't. But the channel is hardly known for being even vaguely connected to the real world. I don’t know how to respond to that, best I can come up with is maybe try watching it before rubbishing it? I think that would add weight to your views, especially after what you said about people who listen to conspiracy " I'm honestly not interested in watching any conspiracy theory related, anti-science TV channels or media. There's a huge volume of it out there. Not enough time to even tickle the tip of the iceberg. I'll just stick to real life information and science. I don't have any views other than science is real. Everything unscientific isn't worth listening to, especially when it comes to a scientific topic like climate change. No other weight is needed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I deny the climate deniers. Just like I deny GB news is a news outlet. Your point of view only? GBeebies is a propaganda channel. Nothing more. Do they have a point of view? News isn’t about points of view. It’s about news. Ofcom have certainly taken repeated interest in the channel. You said it wasn't a news channel, make your mind up.... It’s not a news channel. I never says it was. You do get confused at times.. So they have opinions and are allowed to have them? I’m not the one that’s confused. It’s not the job of a news channel to report their own opinions. You said it wasn't a news channel so they can discuss their own opinions, unless you are wrong and it is a news channel. Which one is it? Oh I see where you’ve given wrong. It’s called GB news, so they claim it is a news station. However, they voice their own propaganda - which is not what a news channel should be. They’re free to spout their nonsense, but they shouldn’t claim to be a news channel whilst they’re do so. I've never watched GB News so no idea what they show but every single 'news publication' 'spouts nonsense' I haven't watched and I wouldn't go out my way to watch it either. From what I hear and read in here, it seems to attract more viewers from the left than the right. I dip into it now and again. I prefer to have varied news sources as it helps see things from different angles. I do use the BBC more than others on the whole but not exclusively. Have seen some good debates on GB news and everyone is allowed to put their point of view without interruptions. Varied as in the scientific view and the unscientific view? I have not managed to catch a debate that is to do with things like the climate so could not answer that specific question with any accuracy. I can only comment on the bits I have seen as I have done. I mean, what varied views do prefer? With scientific issues, like climate change. There is only one view that's important, that's the scientific one. How do you know that is not happening on GB news, scientific data being discussed by scientists? I don't. But the channel is hardly known for being even vaguely connected to the real world. I don’t know how to respond to that, best I can come up with is maybe try watching it before rubbishing it? I think that would add weight to your views, especially after what you said about people who listen to conspiracy I'm honestly not interested in watching any conspiracy theory related, anti-science TV channels or media. There's a huge volume of it out there. Not enough time to even tickle the tip of the iceberg. I'll just stick to real life information and science. I don't have any views other than science is real. Everything unscientific isn't worth listening to, especially when it comes to a scientific topic like climate change. No other weight is needed." Honest question: why do you contribute to a political forum if you’re not prepared to consider other points of view? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I deny the climate deniers. Just like I deny GB news is a news outlet. Your point of view only? GBeebies is a propaganda channel. Nothing more. Do they have a point of view? News isn’t about points of view. It’s about news. Ofcom have certainly taken repeated interest in the channel. You said it wasn't a news channel, make your mind up.... It’s not a news channel. I never says it was. You do get confused at times.. So they have opinions and are allowed to have them? I’m not the one that’s confused. It’s not the job of a news channel to report their own opinions. You said it wasn't a news channel so they can discuss their own opinions, unless you are wrong and it is a news channel. Which one is it? Oh I see where you’ve given wrong. It’s called GB news, so they claim it is a news station. However, they voice their own propaganda - which is not what a news channel should be. They’re free to spout their nonsense, but they shouldn’t claim to be a news channel whilst they’re do so. I've never watched GB News so no idea what they show but every single 'news publication' 'spouts nonsense' I haven't watched and I wouldn't go out my way to watch it either. From what I hear and read in here, it seems to attract more viewers from the left than the right. I dip into it now and again. I prefer to have varied news sources as it helps see things from different angles. I do use the BBC more than others on the whole but not exclusively. Have seen some good debates on GB news and everyone is allowed to put their point of view without interruptions. Varied as in the scientific view and the unscientific view? I have not managed to catch a debate that is to do with things like the climate so could not answer that specific question with any accuracy. I can only comment on the bits I have seen as I have done. I mean, what varied views do prefer? With scientific issues, like climate change. There is only one view that's important, that's the scientific one. How do you know that is not happening on GB news, scientific data being discussed by scientists? I don't. But the channel is hardly known for being even vaguely connected to the real world. I don’t know how to respond to that, best I can come up with is maybe try watching it before rubbishing it? I think that would add weight to your views, especially after what you said about people who listen to conspiracy I'm honestly not interested in watching any conspiracy theory related, anti-science TV channels or media. There's a huge volume of it out there. Not enough time to even tickle the tip of the iceberg. I'll just stick to real life information and science. I don't have any views other than science is real. Everything unscientific isn't worth listening to, especially when it comes to a scientific topic like climate change. No other weight is needed. Honest question: why do you contribute to a political forum if you’re not prepared to consider other points of view?" I do, but this is a scientific question. There is the scientific point of view. And a range of unscientific points of view. Why would I waste time on non-scientific views of a scientific issue? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I deny the climate deniers. Just like I deny GB news is a news outlet. Your point of view only? GBeebies is a propaganda channel. Nothing more. Do they have a point of view? News isn’t about points of view. It’s about news. Ofcom have certainly taken repeated interest in the channel. You said it wasn't a news channel, make your mind up.... It’s not a news channel. I never says it was. You do get confused at times.. So they have opinions and are allowed to have them? I’m not the one that’s confused. It’s not the job of a news channel to report their own opinions. You said it wasn't a news channel so they can discuss their own opinions, unless you are wrong and it is a news channel. Which one is it? Oh I see where you’ve given wrong. It’s called GB news, so they claim it is a news station. However, they voice their own propaganda - which is not what a news channel should be. They’re free to spout their nonsense, but they shouldn’t claim to be a news channel whilst they’re do so. I've never watched GB News so no idea what they show but every single 'news publication' 'spouts nonsense' I haven't watched and I wouldn't go out my way to watch it either. From what I hear and read in here, it seems to attract more viewers from the left than the right. I dip into it now and again. I prefer to have varied news sources as it helps see things from different angles. I do use the BBC more than others on the whole but not exclusively. Have seen some good debates on GB news and everyone is allowed to put their point of view without interruptions. Varied as in the scientific view and the unscientific view? I have not managed to catch a debate that is to do with things like the climate so could not answer that specific question with any accuracy. I can only comment on the bits I have seen as I have done. I mean, what varied views do prefer? With scientific issues, like climate change. There is only one view that's important, that's the scientific one. " As I say I have not seen any on climate or to the best of my memory anything scientific related so cannot give you an answer. There has been economic discussions, political in fighting discussions, Ukraine discussions,sports discussions, that sort of thing. Maybe if I watched it more regular then I would catch something relating to climate change but I prefer to use different sources. The BBC being one of the main ones | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Climate change is natural and is influenced by the planets and the moon, other natural factors including changes in the sun, emissions from volcanoes, variations in earths orbit and levels of carbon dioxide "Indeed. However the CO2 level increase from human activity has greatly accelerated the rate of climate change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Climate change is natural and is influenced by the planets and the moon, other natural factors including changes in the sun, emissions from volcanoes, variations in earths orbit and levels of carbon dioxide "Yes climate change is natural. When a pupil I learned we will again have an ice age. We have a few years yet though  .
The climate change we are currently undergoing is increasingly destructive. If people don't think humans are the cause, that still wouldn't discount trying to find ways of slowing the change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Climate change is natural and is influenced by the planets and the moon, other natural factors including changes in the sun, emissions from volcanoes, variations in earths orbit and levels of carbon dioxide "Can you explain the dramatic increase in CO2 aligned from the Industrial Revolution onwards? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Climate change is natural and is influenced by the planets and the moon, other natural factors including changes in the sun, emissions from volcanoes, variations in earths orbit and levels of carbon dioxide
Yes climate change is natural. When a pupil I learned we will again have an ice age. We have a few years yet though .
The climate change we are currently undergoing is increasingly destructive. If people don't think humans are the cause, that still wouldn't discount trying to find ways of slowing the change."That is right, since the industrial revolution we have made it harder for ourself with all the pollution, lets say that when the humans time on the planet is over, it will get back to how it was fairly quickly too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Climate change is natural and is influenced by the planets and the moon, other natural factors including changes in the sun, emissions from volcanoes, variations in earths orbit and levels of carbon dioxide
Indeed.
However the CO2 level increase from human activity has greatly accelerated the rate of climate change. "Yes, the human activity doesnt help, there is a saying about it "We are not destroying the earth, we are destroying ourselves" I think that saying sums it up too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Climate change is natural and is influenced by the planets and the moon, other natural factors including changes in the sun, emissions from volcanoes, variations in earths orbit and levels of carbon dioxide
Indeed.
However the CO2 level increase from human activity has greatly accelerated the rate of climate change. Yes, the human activity doesnt help, there is a saying about it "We are not destroying the earth, we are destroying ourselves" I think that saying sums it up too. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Climate change is natural and is influenced by the planets and the moon, other natural factors including changes in the sun, emissions from volcanoes, variations in earths orbit and levels of carbon dioxide
Indeed.
However the CO2 level increase from human activity has greatly accelerated the rate of climate change. Yes, the human activity doesnt help, there is a saying about it "We are not destroying the earth, we are destroying ourselves" I think that saying sums it up too. "I agree. The Earth is perfectly all right. It is humanity that will die out and our shrivelled corpses will be consumed as food by all the more temperature tollerant animals. I vote Tardigrade for President of the world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Climate change is natural and is influenced by the planets and the moon, other natural factors including changes in the sun, emissions from volcanoes, variations in earths orbit and levels of carbon dioxide
Indeed.
However the CO2 level increase from human activity has greatly accelerated the rate of climate change. Yes, the human activity doesnt help, there is a saying about it "We are not destroying the earth, we are destroying ourselves" I think that saying sums it up too.
I agree. The Earth is perfectly all right. It is humanity that will die out and our shrivelled corpses will be consumed as food by all the more temperature tollerant animals. I vote Tardigrade for President of the world. "That's what I'm thinking too. "Intelligent" life like us may very well be a short term self destructive phenomenon if it appears in the cosmos, far too capable of advancing far faster than it can adapt to and becoming reliant on new systems that interfere with planetary systems it only really finds out about long after they became normalised. We also are far too immersed in this humancentric artificial world we imagined around ourselves where it's all about us, our competing economic and political ideologies and different self serving empires that are constantly squabbling trying to maintain their own interests. To see the full picture, you need to recognise that this human world is not reality, but merely our attempts as a species to function and organise at a scale never seen before, even though this scale between population, energy and resource use is far from sustainable. Life will very likely be flourishing again millions of years down the line and new life will be inhabiting niches left empty due to this mass extinction we're hurtling ever further into, but not sure if there will be descendents of Homo Colossus among the world of then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change?" No we know it happening and we know it's gon so far you can't stop it.. It's a bit like standing in front of a car that is roling and you forgot to put the hand brake on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe as a species we have no say in the progress of what I have always respectfully known as 'Mother Earth'. I mean, who DO we think we are, imagining that this immense mass of a water rich home we have could be even slightly injured by human behaviour...! Everything we consume, extract, burn, etc., in the time we humans have 'graced' this wonderful home we inhabit has been given by her. The amount of time we have lived on (off?) this Earth can be scaled down to a mere 1 1/2 seconds in a seven day period. Yes, ONE AND ONE-HALF SECONDS IN SEVEN DAYS...!! I also believe the entire current human population could all be stood on the Isle of Wight....... cramped maybe but, look at the perspective. Mother Earth shall be here indefinitely. Perhaps, at some distant point in what we humans have deemed and standardised as Earth 'time', she will be content with her future incredible children of every species. 'Climate change' is normal and inevitable, whatever we do. This is my own long-held viewpoint, irrespective of current 'science trends'." ‘Mother Earth’ will not be here indefinitely. Science proves that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe as a species we have no say in the progress of what I have always respectfully known as 'Mother Earth'. I mean, who DO we think we are, imagining that this immense mass of a water rich home we have could be even slightly injured by human behaviour...! Everything we consume, extract, burn, etc., in the time we humans have 'graced' this wonderful home we inhabit has been given by her. The amount of time we have lived on (off?) this Earth can be scaled down to a mere 1 1/2 seconds in a seven day period. Yes, ONE AND ONE-HALF SECONDS IN SEVEN DAYS...!! I also believe the entire current human population could all be stood on the Isle of Wight....... cramped maybe but, look at the perspective. Mother Earth shall be here indefinitely. Perhaps, at some distant point in what we humans have deemed and standardised as Earth 'time', she will be content with her future incredible children of every species. 'Climate change' is normal and inevitable, whatever we do. This is my own long-held viewpoint, irrespective of current 'science trends'." Some deep thought there and I like it for better or worse it will be what it it. And how is to say the oil a species pull out the earth in the next million years is not our own compresed bodies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe as a species we have no say in the progress of what I have always respectfully known as 'Mother Earth'. I mean, who DO we think we are, imagining that this immense mass of a water rich home we have could be even slightly injured by human behaviour...! Everything we consume, extract, burn, etc., in the time we humans have 'graced' this wonderful home we inhabit has been given by her. The amount of time we have lived on (off?) this Earth can be scaled down to a mere 1 1/2 seconds in a seven day period. Yes, ONE AND ONE-HALF SECONDS IN SEVEN DAYS...!! I also believe the entire current human population could all be stood on the Isle of Wight....... cramped maybe but, look at the perspective. Mother Earth shall be here indefinitely. Perhaps, at some distant point in what we humans have deemed and standardised as Earth 'time', she will be content with her future incredible children of every species. 'Climate change' is normal and inevitable, whatever we do. This is my own long-held viewpoint, irrespective of current 'science trends'. ‘Mother Earth’ will not be here indefinitely. Science proves that." Science proves Earth will not be here as is it Indefinitely but I do t think anyone has proven it will self destruction or be vaporated. Just it will be at a point like the dinasors it will inhabited by a different species. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe as a species we have no say in the progress of what I have always respectfully known as 'Mother Earth'. I mean, who DO we think we are, imagining that this immense mass of a water rich home we have could be even slightly injured by human behaviour...! Everything we consume, extract, burn, etc., in the time we humans have 'graced' this wonderful home we inhabit has been given by her. The amount of time we have lived on (off?) this Earth can be scaled down to a mere 1 1/2 seconds in a seven day period. Yes, ONE AND ONE-HALF SECONDS IN SEVEN DAYS...!! I also believe the entire current human population could all be stood on the Isle of Wight....... cramped maybe but, look at the perspective. Mother Earth shall be here indefinitely. Perhaps, at some distant point in what we humans have deemed and standardised as Earth 'time', she will be content with her future incredible children of every species. 'Climate change' is normal and inevitable, whatever we do. This is my own long-held viewpoint, irrespective of current 'science trends'. ‘Mother Earth’ will not be here indefinitely. Science proves that. Science proves Earth will not be here as is it Indefinitely but I do t think anyone has proven it will self destruction or be vaporated. Just it will be at a point like the dinasors it will inhabited by a different species. " We have a limited understanding of our existence and how we came to be. Everything is subject to change | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe as a species we have no say in the progress of what I have always respectfully known as 'Mother Earth'. I mean, who DO we think we are, imagining that this immense mass of a water rich home we have could be even slightly injured by human behaviour...! Everything we consume, extract, burn, etc., in the time we humans have 'graced' this wonderful home we inhabit has been given by her. The amount of time we have lived on (off?) this Earth can be scaled down to a mere 1 1/2 seconds in a seven day period. Yes, ONE AND ONE-HALF SECONDS IN SEVEN DAYS...!! I also believe the entire current human population could all be stood on the Isle of Wight....... cramped maybe but, look at the perspective. Mother Earth shall be here indefinitely. Perhaps, at some distant point in what we humans have deemed and standardised as Earth 'time', she will be content with her future incredible children of every species. 'Climate change' is normal and inevitable, whatever we do. This is my own long-held viewpoint, irrespective of current 'science trends'. ‘Mother Earth’ will not be here indefinitely. Science proves that. Science proves Earth will not be here as is it Indefinitely but I do t think anyone has proven it will self destruction or be vaporated. Just it will be at a point like the dinasors it will inhabited by a different species. We have a limited understanding of our existence and how we came to be. Everything is subject to change " I assure you that one day the earth will be swallowed up by the Sun. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I believe as a species we have no say in the progress of what I have always respectfully known as 'Mother Earth'. I mean, who DO we think we are, imagining that this immense mass of a water rich home we have could be even slightly injured by human behaviour...! Everything we consume, extract, burn, etc., in the time we humans have 'graced' this wonderful home we inhabit has been given by her. The amount of time we have lived on (off?) this Earth can be scaled down to a mere 1 1/2 seconds in a seven day period. Yes, ONE AND ONE-HALF SECONDS IN SEVEN DAYS...!! I also believe the entire current human population could all be stood on the Isle of Wight....... cramped maybe but, look at the perspective. Mother Earth shall be here indefinitely. Perhaps, at some distant point in what we humans have deemed and standardised as Earth 'time', she will be content with her future incredible children of every species. 'Climate change' is normal and inevitable, whatever we do. This is my own long-held viewpoint, irrespective of current 'science trends'. ‘Mother Earth’ will not be here indefinitely. Science proves that. Science proves Earth will not be here as is it Indefinitely but I do t think anyone has proven it will self destruction or be vaporated. Just it will be at a point like the dinasors it will inhabited by a different species. We have a limited understanding of our existence and how we came to be. Everything is subject to change I assure you that one day the earth will be swallowed up by the Sun." So live . It's all you have | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I assure you that one day the earth will be swallowed up by the Sun. So live . It's all you have "************************************** The only practical reply, thanks Blu..! X Yes, the Sun shall expand greatly toward the end of it's noble life, a life spent (up to now) generating and sustaining all biological life on Mother Earth. So, this inevitable expansion in a 'few billion' solar years (Earth standard time based on orbit about our sun) shall indeed engulf almost all the eight planets in our system. My opinion on 'climate scientists'....? Soothsayers, witch doctors, self-perpetuating ne'er-do-wells in MANY cases..., (NOTE.....Not all). I am an adherent of tangible, proven and absolute scientific progression and it's eventual irrefutible, real time conclusions, esp. technology, for the advancement of ALL life on Earth. Speculation, not knowing all the variables, is, as far as I'm concerned, science fiction. Don't forget..... all the above post is a collection of words chosen and assembled to convey my own views. Not binding, not sacrosanct....... not harmful or disrespectful to anyone in particular. An opinion given.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"‘Mother Earth’ will not be here indefinitely. Science proves that." *********************************** "Mother Earth SHALL be here indefinitely", as I posted, Is correct. * Meaning(s); "Earth shall exist for an unknown period of time"....., * "Earths' final fate cannot be accurately determined"....., * "Earth shall continue to exist, but for a finite period of time" * "At some future point, Earth WILL cease to exist" * (I just had to reply to your otherwise correct assertion, sorry...!!) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here? There will always be deniers, but there are also people who are not denying the climate is changing for the worst and things are unstable, but are questioning the modelling and data being used. Those people get full denier headlines for questioning the science. " I asked a couple of scientist at university I respect about the data because most of us don’t know the data, only the news reports on it which are heavily biased. How many studies have been dine? By who? And how many Jake the news headlines or activists feeds? It’s all manipulation. They told me approx 90% of data suggests it’s very real , with 10% of studies inconclusive. When it comes to reasons for climate change it’s more like 50/50 , no consensus in the studies that were contributing to it. Personally I think in hundreds or thousands of years if it gets bad they will just construct a giant straw and release sine heat into space. Problem solved. Like they fixed the ozone layer when it god bad. I don’t think taking your own cup to Starbucks or switching the TV off standby really helps. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here? There will always be deniers, but there are also people who are not denying the climate is changing for the worst and things are unstable, but are questioning the modelling and data being used. Those people get full denier headlines for questioning the science. I asked a couple of scientist at university I respect about the data because most of us don’t know the data, only the news reports on it which are heavily biased. How many studies have been dine? By who? And how many Jake the news headlines or activists feeds? It’s all manipulation. They told me approx 90% of data suggests it’s very real , with 10% of studies inconclusive. When it comes to reasons for climate change it’s more like 50/50 , no consensus in the studies that were contributing to it. Personally I think in hundreds or thousands of years if it gets bad they will just construct a giant straw and release sine heat into space. Problem solved. Like they fixed the ozone layer when it god bad. I don’t think taking your own cup to Starbucks or switching the TV off standby really helps. " You don't have to think climate change for your examples. Less waste = less pollution or landfill or production processes. Less energy used = more Sustainability. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here? There will always be deniers, but there are also people who are not denying the climate is changing for the worst and things are unstable, but are questioning the modelling and data being used. Those people get full denier headlines for questioning the science. I asked a couple of scientist at university I respect about the data because most of us don’t know the data, only the news reports on it which are heavily biased. How many studies have been dine? By who? And how many Jake the news headlines or activists feeds? It’s all manipulation. They told me approx 90% of data suggests it’s very real , with 10% of studies inconclusive. When it comes to reasons for climate change it’s more like 50/50 , no consensus in the studies that were contributing to it. Personally I think in hundreds or thousands of years if it gets bad they will just construct a giant straw and release sine heat into space. Problem solved. Like they fixed the ozone layer when it god bad. I don’t think taking your own cup to Starbucks or switching the TV off standby really helps. " Although emissions of ODS have dramatically declined, it will still take many more years for the ozone layer to recover. Globally, the ozone layer is expected to return to average 1980 levels by 2040. The Antarctic ozone hole will persist until 2066 or so. Many ODS can remain in the stratosphere for a long time after they're emitted by human activity. In addition, ODS can still be present in old refrigerators, fire extinguishers, and foam insulation. These "banks" of ODS can continue emitting well into the future, even though many of these chemicals have been completely phased out of newer appliances and materials. Hence, the ozone layer did not immediately recover as these chemicals were banned. Rather, emissions that occurred many years ago are still impacting stratospheric ozone and appliances that were manufactured decades ago are still leaking ODS. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What the hell do you mean by climate change? There are multiple climates in earth and we're supposed to believe it's all controlled by what? CO2 produced by humans. Really. I'd like to know by how much the earth has warmed in the past 200 years. That period has seen the greatest advance in human history thanks to the industrial revolution. Someone somewhere is making billions out of wrecking the energy industry that's developed the world. Trillions go into climate projects. Someone's getting rich and in the end we will all be regulated,controlled, spending monitored, movement restricted. But not the elites. They'll still eat the best food,drink the finest champagne and fly in private jets. The third world will be condemned to eternal poverty because they cannot advance without energy and that's hydrocarbons. The green industry is a massive destroyer of the environment. Sla*e labour extracts it from the ground. Ecosystems ruined.H2SO4 used to burn the land to extract elements for batteries and panels, which cannot be recycled. Turbines kill birds and screw up whales sonar. There's nothing green about them . Good luck surviving with out hydrocarbons and their derivatives. Follow the money folks. People are getting rich out of the masses' misery. The earth is greener,coral reefs are expanding, croo yield up ,biodiversity increasing. CO2. We need it. In fact man burning coal and oil has probably saved the end of life on earth. If we get to 150ppm CO2 green plants die and so does life. We're currently at about 400ppm. It's a vital micro gas. When idiots like john kerry say " it's time to get CO2 out thr earth's atmosphere " you know you're dealing with a moron. Who can even separate science from politics now? Stopping oil won't save the planet. It doesn't need to be saved. Climate change has always happened. As for this bull about the hottest day ever, oh please. Compare to the medieval or Roman warm periods. Oceans have been cooling for 50 million years. The past saw hotter and colder times. All happened before we showed up. This green movement is evil and malevolent. The Chinese, Russians and Indians will never go along with it. Net zero. Wtf are they on about? Honest to God. Since when the hell did governments ever solve anything? Besides ,there's nothing to solve. I'm waiting for some genocidal loon to say there are too many people. What's their plan? And whi would get the chop? Not them. Tyrants trying to control with fear . That's what governments are. As for just stop oil, a bunch of do gooding, middle class old women from leafy suburbs on a guilt trip for being comfortable and lefty,self righteous soya boys thinking they're entitled to stop people going about their lawful business. I'm waiting for the first motorist to really lose it and terminate one of them. It'll happen. The UN,WEF,WHO,IMF, all those globalist organisations need to be disbanded or us leave them. They're nothing more than attempts to centralize control, take power from individual nations and ultimately the people. Hopefully they will fail. It always did in the past.The League of Nations,Napoleon, the Kaiser, Hitler, Stalin...even Alexander the great. It never works. People don't want it and it just removes power from individuals and there is nothing more important than the individual. All this collectivism, it's been tried. Communist, nazis, dictatorships....it never works and with any luck people will rise up. Sadly many will suffer before these globalist sonsofbitches are stopped. They always use fear to terrify people into submission and use it as a reason to centralize control. Feel free to disagree, I don't care. I'm on the side of right and anyone on the other side is on the side of globalists, regulation and loss of liberty. Individualism and individuals create and invent while collectives destroy and ensl*ve. Nothing is more important than freedom and that means individuals. Some people just seem to hate liberty and want to be controlled. We saw it during covid and it's here again. Pick your side for the big dance folks, it's coming. " I’m on the side of the climate scientists who’ve dedicated their lives to researching this stuff. Not the YouTubers who think they know better. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What the hell do you mean by climate change? There are multiple climates in earth and we're supposed to believe it's all controlled by what? CO2 produced by humans. Really. I'd like to know by how much the earth has warmed in the past 200 years. That period has seen the greatest advance in human history thanks to the industrial revolution. Someone somewhere is making billions out of wrecking the energy industry that's developed the world. Trillions go into climate projects. Someone's getting rich and in the end we will all be regulated,controlled, spending monitored, movement restricted. But not the elites. They'll still eat the best food,drink the finest champagne and fly in private jets. The third world will be condemned to eternal poverty because they cannot advance without energy and that's hydrocarbons. The green industry is a massive destroyer of the environment. Sla*e labour extracts it from the ground. Ecosystems ruined.H2SO4 used to burn the land to extract elements for batteries and panels, which cannot be recycled. Turbines kill birds and screw up whales sonar. There's nothing green about them . Good luck surviving with out hydrocarbons and their derivatives. Follow the money folks. People are getting rich out of the masses' misery. The earth is greener,coral reefs are expanding, croo yield up ,biodiversity increasing. CO2. We need it. In fact man burning coal and oil has probably saved the end of life on earth. If we get to 150ppm CO2 green plants die and so does life. We're currently at about 400ppm. It's a vital micro gas. When idiots like john kerry say " it's time to get CO2 out thr earth's atmosphere " you know you're dealing with a moron. Who can even separate science from politics now? Stopping oil won't save the planet. It doesn't need to be saved. Climate change has always happened. As for this bull about the hottest day ever, oh please. Compare to the medieval or Roman warm periods. Oceans have been cooling for 50 million years. The past saw hotter and colder times. All happened before we showed up. This green movement is evil and malevolent. The Chinese, Russians and Indians will never go along with it. Net zero. Wtf are they on about? Honest to God. Since when the hell did governments ever solve anything? Besides ,there's nothing to solve. I'm waiting for some genocidal loon to say there are too many people. What's their plan? And whi would get the chop? Not them. Tyrants trying to control with fear . That's what governments are. As for just stop oil, a bunch of do gooding, middle class old women from leafy suburbs on a guilt trip for being comfortable and lefty,self righteous soya boys thinking they're entitled to stop people going about their lawful business. I'm waiting for the first motorist to really lose it and terminate one of them. It'll happen. The UN,WEF,WHO,IMF, all those globalist organisations need to be disbanded or us leave them. They're nothing more than attempts to centralize control, take power from individual nations and ultimately the people. Hopefully they will fail. It always did in the past.The League of Nations,Napoleon, the Kaiser, Hitler, Stalin...even Alexander the great. It never works. People don't want it and it just removes power from individuals and there is nothing more important than the individual. All this collectivism, it's been tried. Communist, nazis, dictatorships....it never works and with any luck people will rise up. Sadly many will suffer before these globalist sonsofbitches are stopped. They always use fear to terrify people into submission and use it as a reason to centralize control. Feel free to disagree, I don't care. I'm on the side of right and anyone on the other side is on the side of globalists, regulation and loss of liberty. Individualism and individuals create and invent while collectives destroy and ensl*ve. Nothing is more important than freedom and that means individuals. Some people just seem to hate liberty and want to be controlled. We saw it during covid and it's here again. Pick your side for the big dance folks, it's coming. I’m on the side of the climate scientists who’ve dedicated their lives to researching this stuff. Not the YouTubers who think they know better." Name them, the climate scientists. Weak comment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Becool you are wrong about China. Never thought I would say that, but in terms of green energy and meeting targets, they are smashing it." They're digging fur coal like there's no tomorrow and so is India. Forget about hydrocarbons, we beed them. They're vital not a threat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What the hell do you mean by climate change? There are multiple climates in earth and we're supposed to believe it's all controlled by what? CO2 produced by humans. Really. I'd like to know by how much the earth has warmed in the past 200 years. That period has seen the greatest advance in human history thanks to the industrial revolution. Someone somewhere is making billions out of wrecking the energy industry that's developed the world. Trillions go into climate projects. Someone's getting rich and in the end we will all be regulated,controlled, spending monitored, movement restricted. But not the elites. They'll still eat the best food,drink the finest champagne and fly in private jets. The third world will be condemned to eternal poverty because they cannot advance without energy and that's hydrocarbons. The green industry is a massive destroyer of the environment. Sla*e labour extracts it from the ground. Ecosystems ruined.H2SO4 used to burn the land to extract elements for batteries and panels, which cannot be recycled. Turbines kill birds and screw up whales sonar. There's nothing green about them . Good luck surviving with out hydrocarbons and their derivatives. Follow the money folks. People are getting rich out of the masses' misery. The earth is greener,coral reefs are expanding, croo yield up ,biodiversity increasing. CO2. We need it. In fact man burning coal and oil has probably saved the end of life on earth. If we get to 150ppm CO2 green plants die and so does life. We're currently at about 400ppm. It's a vital micro gas. When idiots like john kerry say " it's time to get CO2 out thr earth's atmosphere " you know you're dealing with a moron. Who can even separate science from politics now? Stopping oil won't save the planet. It doesn't need to be saved. Climate change has always happened. As for this bull about the hottest day ever, oh please. Compare to the medieval or Roman warm periods. Oceans have been cooling for 50 million years. The past saw hotter and colder times. All happened before we showed up. This green movement is evil and malevolent. The Chinese, Russians and Indians will never go along with it. Net zero. Wtf are they on about? Honest to God. Since when the hell did governments ever solve anything? Besides ,there's nothing to solve. I'm waiting for some genocidal loon to say there are too many people. What's their plan? And whi would get the chop? Not them. Tyrants trying to control with fear . That's what governments are. As for just stop oil, a bunch of do gooding, middle class old women from leafy suburbs on a guilt trip for being comfortable and lefty,self righteous soya boys thinking they're entitled to stop people going about their lawful business. I'm waiting for the first motorist to really lose it and terminate one of them. It'll happen. The UN,WEF,WHO,IMF, all those globalist organisations need to be disbanded or us leave them. They're nothing more than attempts to centralize control, take power from individual nations and ultimately the people. Hopefully they will fail. It always did in the past.The League of Nations,Napoleon, the Kaiser, Hitler, Stalin...even Alexander the great. It never works. People don't want it and it just removes power from individuals and there is nothing more important than the individual. All this collectivism, it's been tried. Communist, nazis, dictatorships....it never works and with any luck people will rise up. Sadly many will suffer before these globalist sonsofbitches are stopped. They always use fear to terrify people into submission and use it as a reason to centralize control. Feel free to disagree, I don't care. I'm on the side of right and anyone on the other side is on the side of globalists, regulation and loss of liberty. Individualism and individuals create and invent while collectives destroy and ensl*ve. Nothing is more important than freedom and that means individuals. Some people just seem to hate liberty and want to be controlled. We saw it during covid and it's here again. Pick your side for the big dance folks, it's coming. I’m on the side of the climate scientists who’ve dedicated their lives to researching this stuff. Not the YouTubers who think they know better. Name them, the climate scientists. Weak comment." Name them? All of them? Mate, you’ve had a shocker. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What the hell do you mean by climate change? There are multiple climates in earth and we're supposed to believe it's all controlled by what? CO2 produced by humans. Really. I'd like to know by how much the earth has warmed in the past 200 years. That period has seen the greatest advance in human history thanks to the industrial revolution. Someone somewhere is making billions out of wrecking the energy industry that's developed the world. Trillions go into climate projects. Someone's getting rich and in the end we will all be regulated,controlled, spending monitored, movement restricted. But not the elites. They'll still eat the best food,drink the finest champagne and fly in private jets. The third world will be condemned to eternal poverty because they cannot advance without energy and that's hydrocarbons. The green industry is a massive destroyer of the environment. Sla*e labour extracts it from the ground. Ecosystems ruined.H2SO4 used to burn the land to extract elements for batteries and panels, which cannot be recycled. Turbines kill birds and screw up whales sonar. There's nothing green about them . Good luck surviving with out hydrocarbons and their derivatives. Follow the money folks. People are getting rich out of the masses' misery. The earth is greener,coral reefs are expanding, croo yield up ,biodiversity increasing. CO2. We need it. In fact man burning coal and oil has probably saved the end of life on earth. If we get to 150ppm CO2 green plants die and so does life. We're currently at about 400ppm. It's a vital micro gas. When idiots like john kerry say " it's time to get CO2 out thr earth's atmosphere " you know you're dealing with a moron. Who can even separate science from politics now? Stopping oil won't save the planet. It doesn't need to be saved. Climate change has always happened. As for this bull about the hottest day ever, oh please. Compare to the medieval or Roman warm periods. Oceans have been cooling for 50 million years. The past saw hotter and colder times. All happened before we showed up. This green movement is evil and malevolent. The Chinese, Russians and Indians will never go along with it. Net zero. Wtf are they on about? Honest to God. Since when the hell did governments ever solve anything? Besides ,there's nothing to solve. I'm waiting for some genocidal loon to say there are too many people. What's their plan? And whi would get the chop? Not them. Tyrants trying to control with fear . That's what governments are. As for just stop oil, a bunch of do gooding, middle class old women from leafy suburbs on a guilt trip for being comfortable and lefty,self righteous soya boys thinking they're entitled to stop people going about their lawful business. I'm waiting for the first motorist to really lose it and terminate one of them. It'll happen. The UN,WEF,WHO,IMF, all those globalist organisations need to be disbanded or us leave them. They're nothing more than attempts to centralize control, take power from individual nations and ultimately the people. Hopefully they will fail. It always did in the past.The League of Nations,Napoleon, the Kaiser, Hitler, Stalin...even Alexander the great. It never works. People don't want it and it just removes power from individuals and there is nothing more important than the individual. All this collectivism, it's been tried. Communist, nazis, dictatorships....it never works and with any luck people will rise up. Sadly many will suffer before these globalist sonsofbitches are stopped. They always use fear to terrify people into submission and use it as a reason to centralize control. Feel free to disagree, I don't care. I'm on the side of right and anyone on the other side is on the side of globalists, regulation and loss of liberty. Individualism and individuals create and invent while collectives destroy and ensl*ve. Nothing is more important than freedom and that means individuals. Some people just seem to hate liberty and want to be controlled. We saw it during covid and it's here again. Pick your side for the big dance folks, it's coming. I’m on the side of the climate scientists who’ve dedicated their lives to researching this stuff. Not the YouTubers who think they know better. Name them, the climate scientists. Weak comment. Name them? All of them? Mate, you’ve had a shocker." But he’s right! You have a shocker every day on here and still come back for more ridicule on a daily basis | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What the hell do you mean by climate change? There are multiple climates in earth and we're supposed to believe it's all controlled by what? CO2 produced by humans. Really. I'd like to know by how much the earth has warmed in the past 200 years. That period has seen the greatest advance in human history thanks to the industrial revolution. Someone somewhere is making billions out of wrecking the energy industry that's developed the world. Trillions go into climate projects. Someone's getting rich and in the end we will all be regulated,controlled, spending monitored, movement restricted. But not the elites. They'll still eat the best food,drink the finest champagne and fly in private jets. The third world will be condemned to eternal poverty because they cannot advance without energy and that's hydrocarbons. The green industry is a massive destroyer of the environment. Sla*e labour extracts it from the ground. Ecosystems ruined.H2SO4 used to burn the land to extract elements for batteries and panels, which cannot be recycled. Turbines kill birds and screw up whales sonar. There's nothing green about them . Good luck surviving with out hydrocarbons and their derivatives. Follow the money folks. People are getting rich out of the masses' misery. The earth is greener,coral reefs are expanding, croo yield up ,biodiversity increasing. CO2. We need it. In fact man burning coal and oil has probably saved the end of life on earth. If we get to 150ppm CO2 green plants die and so does life. We're currently at about 400ppm. It's a vital micro gas. When idiots like john kerry say " it's time to get CO2 out thr earth's atmosphere " you know you're dealing with a moron. Who can even separate science from politics now? Stopping oil won't save the planet. It doesn't need to be saved. Climate change has always happened. As for this bull about the hottest day ever, oh please. Compare to the medieval or Roman warm periods. Oceans have been cooling for 50 million years. The past saw hotter and colder times. All happened before we showed up. This green movement is evil and malevolent. The Chinese, Russians and Indians will never go along with it. Net zero. Wtf are they on about? Honest to God. Since when the hell did governments ever solve anything? Besides ,there's nothing to solve. I'm waiting for some genocidal loon to say there are too many people. What's their plan? And whi would get the chop? Not them. Tyrants trying to control with fear . That's what governments are. As for just stop oil, a bunch of do gooding, middle class old women from leafy suburbs on a guilt trip for being comfortable and lefty,self righteous soya boys thinking they're entitled to stop people going about their lawful business. I'm waiting for the first motorist to really lose it and terminate one of them. It'll happen. The UN,WEF,WHO,IMF, all those globalist organisations need to be disbanded or us leave them. They're nothing more than attempts to centralize control, take power from individual nations and ultimately the people. Hopefully they will fail. It always did in the past.The League of Nations,Napoleon, the Kaiser, Hitler, Stalin...even Alexander the great. It never works. People don't want it and it just removes power from individuals and there is nothing more important than the individual. All this collectivism, it's been tried. Communist, nazis, dictatorships....it never works and with any luck people will rise up. Sadly many will suffer before these globalist sonsofbitches are stopped. They always use fear to terrify people into submission and use it as a reason to centralize control. Feel free to disagree, I don't care. I'm on the side of right and anyone on the other side is on the side of globalists, regulation and loss of liberty. Individualism and individuals create and invent while collectives destroy and ensl*ve. Nothing is more important than freedom and that means individuals. Some people just seem to hate liberty and want to be controlled. We saw it during covid and it's here again. Pick your side for the big dance folks, it's coming. " I'm not picking a side as I haven't looked at THAT particular science. The climate is changing, some of it will be cyclical but you can bet we have affected it.IF we are producing TOO much CO2 it probably is destructive. IF we are not producing enough CO2 then that is probably destructive. Our own bodies produce electrolytes, hormones, neurotransmitters. If we produce too much or too little then, guess what, they're destructive (that's a science I do know a bit about)! So, even though I don't know for definite whether the deniers of one side or the other are bonkers, what I do know is our pollution is destructive (think sea life suffering, rise in asthmatics), landfills give off (noxious?) gasses, fossil fuels will run out etc. We must think sustainability! And climate change/global warming etc has introduced that aspect to the common people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What the hell do you mean by climate change? There are multiple climates in earth and we're supposed to believe it's all controlled by what? CO2 produced by humans. Really. I'd like to know by how much the earth has warmed in the past 200 years. That period has seen the greatest advance in human history thanks to the industrial revolution. Someone somewhere is making billions out of wrecking the energy industry that's developed the world. Trillions go into climate projects. Someone's getting rich and in the end we will all be regulated,controlled, spending monitored, movement restricted. But not the elites. They'll still eat the best food,drink the finest champagne and fly in private jets. The third world will be condemned to eternal poverty because they cannot advance without energy and that's hydrocarbons. The green industry is a massive destroyer of the environment. Sla*e labour extracts it from the ground. Ecosystems ruined.H2SO4 used to burn the land to extract elements for batteries and panels, which cannot be recycled. Turbines kill birds and screw up whales sonar. There's nothing green about them . Good luck surviving with out hydrocarbons and their derivatives. Follow the money folks. People are getting rich out of the masses' misery. The earth is greener,coral reefs are expanding, croo yield up ,biodiversity increasing. CO2. We need it. In fact man burning coal and oil has probably saved the end of life on earth. If we get to 150ppm CO2 green plants die and so does life. We're currently at about 400ppm. It's a vital micro gas. When idiots like john kerry say " it's time to get CO2 out thr earth's atmosphere " you know you're dealing with a moron. Who can even separate science from politics now? Stopping oil won't save the planet. It doesn't need to be saved. Climate change has always happened. As for this bull about the hottest day ever, oh please. Compare to the medieval or Roman warm periods. Oceans have been cooling for 50 million years. The past saw hotter and colder times. All happened before we showed up. This green movement is evil and malevolent. The Chinese, Russians and Indians will never go along with it. Net zero. Wtf are they on about? Honest to God. Since when the hell did governments ever solve anything? Besides ,there's nothing to solve. I'm waiting for some genocidal loon to say there are too many people. What's their plan? And whi would get the chop? Not them. Tyrants trying to control with fear . That's what governments are. As for just stop oil, a bunch of do gooding, middle class old women from leafy suburbs on a guilt trip for being comfortable and lefty,self righteous soya boys thinking they're entitled to stop people going about their lawful business. I'm waiting for the first motorist to really lose it and terminate one of them. It'll happen. The UN,WEF,WHO,IMF, all those globalist organisations need to be disbanded or us leave them. They're nothing more than attempts to centralize control, take power from individual nations and ultimately the people. Hopefully they will fail. It always did in the past.The League of Nations,Napoleon, the Kaiser, Hitler, Stalin...even Alexander the great. It never works. People don't want it and it just removes power from individuals and there is nothing more important than the individual. All this collectivism, it's been tried. Communist, nazis, dictatorships....it never works and with any luck people will rise up. Sadly many will suffer before these globalist sonsofbitches are stopped. They always use fear to terrify people into submission and use it as a reason to centralize control. Feel free to disagree, I don't care. I'm on the side of right and anyone on the other side is on the side of globalists, regulation and loss of liberty. Individualism and individuals create and invent while collectives destroy and ensl*ve. Nothing is more important than freedom and that means individuals. Some people just seem to hate liberty and want to be controlled. We saw it during covid and it's here again. Pick your side for the big dance folks, it's coming. I’m on the side of the climate scientists who’ve dedicated their lives to researching this stuff. Not the YouTubers who think they know better. Name them, the climate scientists. Weak comment. Name them? All of them? Mate, you’ve had a shocker. But he’s right! You have a shocker every day on here and still come back for more ridicule on a daily basis "He hasn't posted in a thread for 2 weeks and before that doesn't look like he's posted much. Shocker everyday you say?? Nice too see people attacking him rather than what he's written. That's no fucking shocker round here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here?" Feck we wearing jumpers here in mid summer lol. All I do know is our governments will use it as a reason to charge us more tax to pay them selfs pay rises. Ask your self this, if governments believe it why are they still allowing building in low areas which will flood as the ice caps melt? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here? Feck we wearing jumpers here in mid summer lol. All I do know is our governments will use it as a reason to charge us more tax to pay them selfs pay rises. Ask your self this, if governments believe it why are they still allowing building in low areas which will flood as the ice caps melt? " Cos it won't happen while they are in term. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What the hell do you mean by climate change? There are multiple climates in earth and we're supposed to believe it's all controlled by what? CO2 produced by humans. Really. I'd like to know by how much the earth has warmed in the past 200 years. That period has seen the greatest advance in human history thanks to the industrial revolution. Someone somewhere is making billions out of wrecking the energy industry that's developed the world. Trillions go into climate projects. Someone's getting rich and in the end we will all be regulated,controlled, spending monitored, movement restricted. But not the elites. They'll still eat the best food,drink the finest champagne and fly in private jets. The third world will be condemned to eternal poverty because they cannot advance without energy and that's hydrocarbons. The green industry is a massive destroyer of the environment. Sla*e labour extracts it from the ground. Ecosystems ruined.H2SO4 used to burn the land to extract elements for batteries and panels, which cannot be recycled. Turbines kill birds and screw up whales sonar. There's nothing green about them . Good luck surviving with out hydrocarbons and their derivatives. Follow the money folks. People are getting rich out of the masses' misery. The earth is greener,coral reefs are expanding, croo yield up ,biodiversity increasing. CO2. We need it. In fact man burning coal and oil has probably saved the end of life on earth. If we get to 150ppm CO2 green plants die and so does life. We're currently at about 400ppm. It's a vital micro gas. When idiots like john kerry say " it's time to get CO2 out thr earth's atmosphere " you know you're dealing with a moron. Who can even separate science from politics now? Stopping oil won't save the planet. It doesn't need to be saved. Climate change has always happened. As for this bull about the hottest day ever, oh please. Compare to the medieval or Roman warm periods. Oceans have been cooling for 50 million years. The past saw hotter and colder times. All happened before we showed up. This green movement is evil and malevolent. The Chinese, Russians and Indians will never go along with it. Net zero. Wtf are they on about? Honest to God. Since when the hell did governments ever solve anything? Besides ,there's nothing to solve. I'm waiting for some genocidal loon to say there are too many people. What's their plan? And whi would get the chop? Not them. Tyrants trying to control with fear . That's what governments are. As for just stop oil, a bunch of do gooding, middle class old women from leafy suburbs on a guilt trip for being comfortable and lefty,self righteous soya boys thinking they're entitled to stop people going about their lawful business. I'm waiting for the first motorist to really lose it and terminate one of them. It'll happen. The UN,WEF,WHO,IMF, all those globalist organisations need to be disbanded or us leave them. They're nothing more than attempts to centralize control, take power from individual nations and ultimately the people. Hopefully they will fail. It always did in the past.The League of Nations,Napoleon, the Kaiser, Hitler, Stalin...even Alexander the great. It never works. People don't want it and it just removes power from individuals and there is nothing more important than the individual. All this collectivism, it's been tried. Communist, nazis, dictatorships....it never works and with any luck people will rise up. Sadly many will suffer before these globalist sonsofbitches are stopped. They always use fear to terrify people into submission and use it as a reason to centralize control. Feel free to disagree, I don't care. I'm on the side of right and anyone on the other side is on the side of globalists, regulation and loss of liberty. Individualism and individuals create and invent while collectives destroy and ensl*ve. Nothing is more important than freedom and that means individuals. Some people just seem to hate liberty and want to be controlled. We saw it during covid and it's here again. Pick your side for the big dance folks, it's coming. I’m on the side of the climate scientists who’ve dedicated their lives to researching this stuff. Not the YouTubers who think they know better. Name them, the climate scientists. Weak comment. Name them? All of them? Mate, you’ve had a shocker. But he’s right! You have a shocker every day on here and still come back for more ridicule on a daily basis
He hasn't posted in a thread for 2 weeks and before that doesn't look like he's posted much. Shocker everyday you say??
Nice too see people attacking him rather than what he's written. That's no fucking shocker round here. "You mixed up who I was replying to | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yea just stop oil from the north sea then we either buy it from the Arab states or watch our peoples die. Remember Elicticity dosnt just come from wires stuck in the ground. Wind is good but can not completely replace other sorces which in Northern Ireland is gas and oil. Wind needs back up. Solar needs back up. kick just stop oil off the roads they block better still put them in jail." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What the hell do you mean by climate change? There are multiple climates in earth and we're supposed to believe it's all controlled by what? CO2 produced by humans. Really. I'd like to know by how much the earth has warmed in the past 200 years. That period has seen the greatest advance in human history thanks to the industrial revolution. Someone somewhere is making billions out of wrecking the energy industry that's developed the world. Trillions go into climate projects. Someone's getting rich and in the end we will all be regulated,controlled, spending monitored, movement restricted. But not the elites. They'll still eat the best food,drink the finest champagne and fly in private jets. The third world will be condemned to eternal poverty because they cannot advance without energy and that's hydrocarbons. The green industry is a massive destroyer of the environment. Sla*e labour extracts it from the ground. Ecosystems ruined.H2SO4 used to burn the land to extract elements for batteries and panels, which cannot be recycled. Turbines kill birds and screw up whales sonar. There's nothing green about them . Good luck surviving with out hydrocarbons and their derivatives. Follow the money folks. People are getting rich out of the masses' misery. The earth is greener,coral reefs are expanding, croo yield up ,biodiversity increasing. CO2. We need it. In fact man burning coal and oil has probably saved the end of life on earth. If we get to 150ppm CO2 green plants die and so does life. We're currently at about 400ppm. It's a vital micro gas. When idiots like john kerry say " it's time to get CO2 out thr earth's atmosphere " you know you're dealing with a moron. Who can even separate science from politics now? Stopping oil won't save the planet. It doesn't need to be saved. Climate change has always happened. As for this bull about the hottest day ever, oh please. Compare to the medieval or Roman warm periods. Oceans have been cooling for 50 million years. The past saw hotter and colder times. All happened before we showed up. This green movement is evil and malevolent. The Chinese, Russians and Indians will never go along with it. Net zero. Wtf are they on about? Honest to God. Since when the hell did governments ever solve anything? Besides ,there's nothing to solve. I'm waiting for some genocidal loon to say there are too many people. What's their plan? And whi would get the chop? Not them. Tyrants trying to control with fear . That's what governments are. As for just stop oil, a bunch of do gooding, middle class old women from leafy suburbs on a guilt trip for being comfortable and lefty,self righteous soya boys thinking they're entitled to stop people going about their lawful business. I'm waiting for the first motorist to really lose it and terminate one of them. It'll happen. The UN,WEF,WHO,IMF, all those globalist organisations need to be disbanded or us leave them. They're nothing more than attempts to centralize control, take power from individual nations and ultimately the people. Hopefully they will fail. It always did in the past.The League of Nations,Napoleon, the Kaiser, Hitler, Stalin...even Alexander the great. It never works. People don't want it and it just removes power from individuals and there is nothing more important than the individual. All this collectivism, it's been tried. Communist, nazis, dictatorships....it never works and with any luck people will rise up. Sadly many will suffer before these globalist sonsofbitches are stopped. They always use fear to terrify people into submission and use it as a reason to centralize control. Feel free to disagree, I don't care. I'm on the side of right and anyone on the other side is on the side of globalists, regulation and loss of liberty. Individualism and individuals create and invent while collectives destroy and ensl*ve. Nothing is more important than freedom and that means individuals. Some people just seem to hate liberty and want to be controlled. We saw it during covid and it's here again. Pick your side for the big dance folks, it's coming. I’m on the side of the climate scientists who’ve dedicated their lives to researching this stuff. Not the YouTubers who think they know better. Name them, the climate scientists. Weak comment. Name them? All of them? Mate, you’ve had a shocker. But he’s right! You have a shocker every day on here and still come back for more ridicule on a daily basis
He hasn't posted in a thread for 2 weeks and before that doesn't look like he's posted much. Shocker everyday you say??
Nice too see people attacking him rather than what he's written. That's no fucking shocker round here.
You mixed up who I was replying to "I see it now. Apologies (facepalm) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here? Feck we wearing jumpers here in mid summer lol. All I do know is our governments will use it as a reason to charge us more tax to pay them selfs pay rises. Ask your self this, if governments believe it why are they still allowing building in low areas which will flood as the ice caps melt? " Because they work for the oil and fossil fuels industry. The good thing about science is, you don't have to "believe" it, you can read about it and understand it. Knowledge defeats ignorance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What the hell do you mean by climate change? There are multiple climates in earth and we're supposed to believe it's all controlled by what? CO2 produced by humans. Really. I'd like to know by how much the earth has warmed in the past 200 years. That period has seen the greatest advance in human history thanks to the industrial revolution. Someone somewhere is making billions out of wrecking the energy industry that's developed the world. Trillions go into climate projects. Someone's getting rich and in the end we will all be regulated,controlled, spending monitored, movement restricted. But not the elites. They'll still eat the best food,drink the finest champagne and fly in private jets. The third world will be condemned to eternal poverty because they cannot advance without energy and that's hydrocarbons. The green industry is a massive destroyer of the environment. Sla*e labour extracts it from the ground. Ecosystems ruined.H2SO4 used to burn the land to extract elements for batteries and panels, which cannot be recycled. Turbines kill birds and screw up whales sonar. There's nothing green about them . Good luck surviving with out hydrocarbons and their derivatives. Follow the money folks. People are getting rich out of the masses' misery. The earth is greener,coral reefs are expanding, croo yield up ,biodiversity increasing. CO2. We need it. In fact man burning coal and oil has probably saved the end of life on earth. If we get to 150ppm CO2 green plants die and so does life. We're currently at about 400ppm. It's a vital micro gas. When idiots like john kerry say " it's time to get CO2 out thr earth's atmosphere " you know you're dealing with a moron. Who can even separate science from politics now? Stopping oil won't save the planet. It doesn't need to be saved. Climate change has always happened. As for this bull about the hottest day ever, oh please. Compare to the medieval or Roman warm periods. Oceans have been cooling for 50 million years. The past saw hotter and colder times. All happened before we showed up. This green movement is evil and malevolent. The Chinese, Russians and Indians will never go along with it. Net zero. Wtf are they on about? Honest to God. Since when the hell did governments ever solve anything? Besides ,there's nothing to solve. I'm waiting for some genocidal loon to say there are too many people. What's their plan? And whi would get the chop? Not them. Tyrants trying to control with fear . That's what governments are. As for just stop oil, a bunch of do gooding, middle class old women from leafy suburbs on a guilt trip for being comfortable and lefty,self righteous soya boys thinking they're entitled to stop people going about their lawful business. I'm waiting for the first motorist to really lose it and terminate one of them. It'll happen. The UN,WEF,WHO,IMF, all those globalist organisations need to be disbanded or us leave them. They're nothing more than attempts to centralize control, take power from individual nations and ultimately the people. Hopefully they will fail. It always did in the past.The League of Nations,Napoleon, the Kaiser, Hitler, Stalin...even Alexander the great. It never works. People don't want it and it just removes power from individuals and there is nothing more important than the individual. All this collectivism, it's been tried. Communist, nazis, dictatorships....it never works and with any luck people will rise up. Sadly many will suffer before these globalist sonsofbitches are stopped. They always use fear to terrify people into submission and use it as a reason to centralize control. Feel free to disagree, I don't care. I'm on the side of right and anyone on the other side is on the side of globalists, regulation and loss of liberty. Individualism and individuals create and invent while collectives destroy and ensl*ve. Nothing is more important than freedom and that means individuals. Some people just seem to hate liberty and want to be controlled. We saw it during covid and it's here again. Pick your side for the big dance folks, it's coming. I’m on the side of the climate scientists who’ve dedicated their lives to researching this stuff. Not the YouTubers who think they know better. Name them, the climate scientists. Weak comment. Name them? All of them? Mate, you’ve had a shocker. But he’s right! You have a shocker every day on here and still come back for more ridicule on a daily basis "Introducing Hitler to a climate change discussion? Okies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here? Feck we wearing jumpers here in mid summer lol. All I do know is our governments will use it as a reason to charge us more tax to pay them selfs pay rises. Ask your self this, if governments believe it why are they still allowing building in low areas which will flood as the ice caps melt? Because they work for the oil and fossil fuels industry. The good thing about science is, you don't have to "believe" it, you can read about it and understand it. Knowledge defeats ignorance. " Neil DeGrasse Tyson is excellent on that point. Science doesn’t care whether you believe it or not. It just is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yea just stop oil from the north sea then we either buy it from the Arab states or watch our peoples die. Remember Elicticity dosnt just come from wires stuck in the ground. Wind is good but can not completely replace other sorces which in Northern Ireland is gas and oil. Wind needs back up. Solar needs back up. kick just stop oil off the roads they block better still put them in jail." Jailing protestors now? Jesus Christ, this place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here? Feck we wearing jumpers here in mid summer lol. All I do know is our governments will use it as a reason to charge us more tax to pay them selfs pay rises. Ask your self this, if governments believe it why are they still allowing building in low areas which will flood as the ice caps melt? Because they work for the oil and fossil fuels industry. The good thing about science is, you don't have to "believe" it, you can read about it and understand it. Knowledge defeats ignorance. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is excellent on that point. Science doesn’t care whether you believe it or not. It just is." What about one scientist who contradicts another? Who do you believe then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I assure you that one day the earth will be swallowed up by the Sun. So live . It's all you have
**************************************
The only practical reply, thanks Blu..! X
Yes, the Sun shall expand greatly toward the end of it's noble life, a life spent (up to now) generating and sustaining all biological life on Mother Earth.
So, this inevitable expansion in a 'few billion' solar years (Earth standard time based on orbit about our sun) shall indeed engulf almost all the eight planets in our system.
My opinion on 'climate scientists'....?
Soothsayers, witch doctors, self-perpetuating ne'er-do-wells in MANY cases..., (NOTE.....Not all).
I am an adherent of tangible, proven and absolute scientific progression and it's eventual irrefutible, real time conclusions, esp. technology, for the advancement of ALL life on Earth.
Speculation, not knowing all the variables, is, as far as I'm concerned, science fiction.
Don't forget..... all the above post is a collection of words chosen and assembled to convey my own views.
Not binding, not sacrosanct....... not harmful or disrespectful to anyone in particular. An opinion given. "Notice no one is mentioning the earth axis tilt. People will blame humans for taking the groundwater. What's next ban water ? The earth goes through phases. It will go through them it's documented scientifically.Yet people panicking thinking they can stop it. You can't. So why irritate other people assuming you could. You either live with it or go insane thinking you can do something. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Becool you are wrong about China. Never thought I would say that, but in terms of green energy and meeting targets, they are smashing it. They're digging fur coal like there's no tomorrow and so is India. Forget about hydrocarbons, we beed them. They're vital not a threat." Each year from 2020 to 2022, China installed about 140GW of new renewable electricity capacity, more than the US, the EU, and India put together. (A gigawatt is enough to power 750,000 homes.) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here? Feck we wearing jumpers here in mid summer lol. All I do know is our governments will use it as a reason to charge us more tax to pay them selfs pay rises. Ask your self this, if governments believe it why are they still allowing building in low areas which will flood as the ice caps melt? Because they work for the oil and fossil fuels industry. The good thing about science is, you don't have to "believe" it, you can read about it and understand it. Knowledge defeats ignorance. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is excellent on that point. Science doesn’t care whether you believe it or not. It just is. What about one scientist who contradicts another? Who do you believe then?" Scientific facts are simply theories waiting to be proved or disproved until a consensus is reached (but could still be disproved). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here? Feck we wearing jumpers here in mid summer lol. All I do know is our governments will use it as a reason to charge us more tax to pay them selfs pay rises. Ask your self this, if governments believe it why are they still allowing building in low areas which will flood as the ice caps melt? Because they work for the oil and fossil fuels industry. The good thing about science is, you don't have to "believe" it, you can read about it and understand it. Knowledge defeats ignorance. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is excellent on that point. Science doesn’t care whether you believe it or not. It just is. What about one scientist who contradicts another? Who do you believe then?" You look at more scientists and weigh the balance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yea just stop oil from the north sea then we either buy it from the Arab states or watch our peoples die. Remember Elicticity dosnt just come from wires stuck in the ground. Wind is good but can not completely replace other sorces which in Northern Ireland is gas and oil. Wind needs back up. Solar needs back up. kick just stop oil off the roads they block better still put them in jail. "So you agree with the guy who supposedly wants to protect freedom and liberty. And you also agree with the guy who wants to jail protestors? I can’t square that circle for you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here? Feck we wearing jumpers here in mid summer lol. All I do know is our governments will use it as a reason to charge us more tax to pay them selfs pay rises. Ask your self this, if governments believe it why are they still allowing building in low areas which will flood as the ice caps melt? Because they work for the oil and fossil fuels industry. The good thing about science is, you don't have to "believe" it, you can read about it and understand it. Knowledge defeats ignorance. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is excellent on that point. Science doesn’t care whether you believe it or not. It just is. What about one scientist who contradicts another? Who do you believe then? You look at more scientists and weigh the balance." You said the science doesn't care. We regularly hear on here that if 'you don't wanna believe the science, you're thick' How many do we need to look at to get that balance? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Becool you are wrong about China. Never thought I would say that, but in terms of green energy and meeting targets, they are smashing it. They're digging fur coal like there's no tomorrow and so is India. Forget about hydrocarbons, we beed them. They're vital not a threat. Each year from 2020 to 2022, China installed about 140GW of new renewable electricity capacity, more than the US, the EU, and India put together. (A gigawatt is enough to power 750,000 homes.)" Have you got the growth of co2 from energy generation in China too? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here? Feck we wearing jumpers here in mid summer lol. All I do know is our governments will use it as a reason to charge us more tax to pay them selfs pay rises. Ask your self this, if governments believe it why are they still allowing building in low areas which will flood as the ice caps melt? Because they work for the oil and fossil fuels industry. The good thing about science is, you don't have to "believe" it, you can read about it and understand it. Knowledge defeats ignorance. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is excellent on that point. Science doesn’t care whether you believe it or not. It just is. What about one scientist who contradicts another? Who do you believe then? You look at more scientists and weigh the balance. You said the science doesn't care. We regularly hear on here that if 'you don't wanna believe the science, you're thick' How many do we need to look at to get that balance? " As with all data, the more the better. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here? Feck we wearing jumpers here in mid summer lol. All I do know is our governments will use it as a reason to charge us more tax to pay them selfs pay rises. Ask your self this, if governments believe it why are they still allowing building in low areas which will flood as the ice caps melt? Because they work for the oil and fossil fuels industry. The good thing about science is, you don't have to "believe" it, you can read about it and understand it. Knowledge defeats ignorance. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is excellent on that point. Science doesn’t care whether you believe it or not. It just is. What about one scientist who contradicts another? Who do you believe then? You look at more scientists and weigh the balance. You said the science doesn't care. We regularly hear on here that if 'you don't wanna believe the science, you're thick' How many do we need to look at to get that balance? As with all data, the more the better. " And if they're still split. Most people don't actually have the time to sit and read 50 theories and take the time to decipher them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here? Feck we wearing jumpers here in mid summer lol. All I do know is our governments will use it as a reason to charge us more tax to pay them selfs pay rises. Ask your self this, if governments believe it why are they still allowing building in low areas which will flood as the ice caps melt? Because they work for the oil and fossil fuels industry. The good thing about science is, you don't have to "believe" it, you can read about it and understand it. Knowledge defeats ignorance. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is excellent on that point. Science doesn’t care whether you believe it or not. It just is. What about one scientist who contradicts another? Who do you believe then? You look at more scientists and weigh the balance. You said the science doesn't care. We regularly hear on here that if 'you don't wanna believe the science, you're thick' How many do we need to look at to get that balance? As with all data, the more the better. And if they're still split. Most people don't actually have the time to sit and read 50 theories and take the time to decipher them. " On climate change, they’re not even close to being evenly split. That’s the point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here? Feck we wearing jumpers here in mid summer lol. All I do know is our governments will use it as a reason to charge us more tax to pay them selfs pay rises. Ask your self this, if governments believe it why are they still allowing building in low areas which will flood as the ice caps melt? Because they work for the oil and fossil fuels industry. The good thing about science is, you don't have to "believe" it, you can read about it and understand it. Knowledge defeats ignorance. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is excellent on that point. Science doesn’t care whether you believe it or not. It just is. What about one scientist who contradicts another? Who do you believe then? You look at more scientists and weigh the balance. You said the science doesn't care. We regularly hear on here that if 'you don't wanna believe the science, you're thick' How many do we need to look at to get that balance? As with all data, the more the better. And if they're still split. Most people don't actually have the time to sit and read 50 theories and take the time to decipher them. On climate change, they’re not even close to being evenly split. That’s the point. " Maybe they aren't but I could definitely find, let's say 10, and get a 50/50 split. You know how long it would take to read just 10. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here? Feck we wearing jumpers here in mid summer lol. All I do know is our governments will use it as a reason to charge us more tax to pay them selfs pay rises. Ask your self this, if governments believe it why are they still allowing building in low areas which will flood as the ice caps melt? Because they work for the oil and fossil fuels industry. The good thing about science is, you don't have to "believe" it, you can read about it and understand it. Knowledge defeats ignorance. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is excellent on that point. Science doesn’t care whether you believe it or not. It just is. What about one scientist who contradicts another? Who do you believe then? You look at more scientists and weigh the balance. You said the science doesn't care. We regularly hear on here that if 'you don't wanna believe the science, you're thick' How many do we need to look at to get that balance? As with all data, the more the better. And if they're still split. Most people don't actually have the time to sit and read 50 theories and take the time to decipher them. On climate change, they’re not even close to being evenly split. That’s the point. Maybe they aren't but I could definitely find, let's say 10, and get a 50/50 split. You know how long it would take to read just 10." You could also go looking for 10 that support your view and get a 10/0 split. But that wouldn’t change anything. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change? Clue in the name? Maybe a rephrase: do climate change deniers still exist? Are there any here? Feck we wearing jumpers here in mid summer lol. All I do know is our governments will use it as a reason to charge us more tax to pay them selfs pay rises. Ask your self this, if governments believe it why are they still allowing building in low areas which will flood as the ice caps melt? Because they work for the oil and fossil fuels industry. The good thing about science is, you don't have to "believe" it, you can read about it and understand it. Knowledge defeats ignorance. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is excellent on that point. Science doesn’t care whether you believe it or not. It just is. What about one scientist who contradicts another? Who do you believe then? You look at more scientists and weigh the balance. You said the science doesn't care. We regularly hear on here that if 'you don't wanna believe the science, you're thick' How many do we need to look at to get that balance? As with all data, the more the better. And if they're still split. Most people don't actually have the time to sit and read 50 theories and take the time to decipher them. On climate change, they’re not even close to being evenly split. That’s the point. Maybe they aren't but I could definitely find, let's say 10, and get a 50/50 split. You know how long it would take to read just 10. You could also go looking for 10 that support your view and get a 10/0 split. But that wouldn’t change anything. " Of course you could. That's the point. People don't have the time to actually decipher it all. What people are really saying when speaking about science is 'believe the science I believe' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change?" I think this question has well and truly been answered pretty much as comprehensively as possible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Coal remains at the heart of China’s flourishing economy. In 2019, 58 percent of the country’s total energy consumption came from coal, which helps explain why China accounts for 28 percent of all global CO2 emissions. And China continues to build coal-fired power plants at a rate that outpaces the rest of the world combined. In 2020, China brought 38.4 gigawatts of new coal-fired power into operation, more than three times what was brought on line everywhere else." Exactly. Which means wrecking our economy with net zero nonsense is......nonsense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Coal remains at the heart of China’s flourishing economy. In 2019, 58 percent of the country’s total energy consumption came from coal, which helps explain why China accounts for 28 percent of all global CO2 emissions. And China continues to build coal-fired power plants at a rate that outpaces the rest of the world combined. In 2020, China brought 38.4 gigawatts of new coal-fired power into operation, more than three times what was brought on line everywhere else. Exactly. Which means wrecking our economy with net zero nonsense is......nonsense. " China are putting far more effort into renewables than us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I assure you that one day the earth will be swallowed up by the Sun. So live . It's all you have
**************************************
The only practical reply, thanks Blu..! X
Yes, the Sun shall expand greatly toward the end of it's noble life, a life spent (up to now) generating and sustaining all biological life on Mother Earth.
So, this inevitable expansion in a 'few billion' solar years (Earth standard time based on orbit about our sun) shall indeed engulf almost all the eight planets in our system.
My opinion on 'climate scientists'....?
Soothsayers, witch doctors, self-perpetuating ne'er-do-wells in MANY cases..., (NOTE.....Not all).
I am an adherent of tangible, proven and absolute scientific progression and it's eventual irrefutible, real time conclusions, esp. technology, for the advancement of ALL life on Earth.
Speculation, not knowing all the variables, is, as far as I'm concerned, science fiction.
Don't forget..... all the above post is a collection of words chosen and assembled to convey my own views.
Not binding, not sacrosanct....... not harmful or disrespectful to anyone in particular. An opinion given. Notice no one is mentioning the earth axis tilt. People will blame humans for taking the groundwater. What's next ban water ? The earth goes through phases. It will go through them it's documented scientifically.Yet people panicking thinking they can stop it. You can't. So why irritate other people assuming you could. You either live with it or go insane thinking you can do something. "Banning water will be next. Wait and see. They'll ban birth next. Watch. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What the hell do you mean by climate change? There are multiple climates in earth and we're supposed to believe it's all controlled by what? CO2 produced by humans. Really. I'd like to know by how much the earth has warmed in the past 200 years. That period has seen the greatest advance in human history thanks to the industrial revolution. Someone somewhere is making billions out of wrecking the energy industry that's developed the world. Trillions go into climate projects. Someone's getting rich and in the end we will all be regulated,controlled, spending monitored, movement restricted. But not the elites. They'll still eat the best food,drink the finest champagne and fly in private jets. The third world will be condemned to eternal poverty because they cannot advance without energy and that's hydrocarbons. The green industry is a massive destroyer of the environment. Sla*e labour extracts it from the ground. Ecosystems ruined.H2SO4 used to burn the land to extract elements for batteries and panels, which cannot be recycled. Turbines kill birds and screw up whales sonar. There's nothing green about them . Good luck surviving with out hydrocarbons and their derivatives. Follow the money folks. People are getting rich out of the masses' misery. The earth is greener,coral reefs are expanding, croo yield up ,biodiversity increasing. CO2. We need it. In fact man burning coal and oil has probably saved the end of life on earth. If we get to 150ppm CO2 green plants die and so does life. We're currently at about 400ppm. It's a vital micro gas. When idiots like john kerry say " it's time to get CO2 out thr earth's atmosphere " you know you're dealing with a moron. Who can even separate science from politics now? Stopping oil won't save the planet. It doesn't need to be saved. Climate change has always happened. As for this bull about the hottest day ever, oh please. Compare to the medieval or Roman warm periods. Oceans have been cooling for 50 million years. The past saw hotter and colder times. All happened before we showed up. This green movement is evil and malevolent. The Chinese, Russians and Indians will never go along with it. Net zero. Wtf are they on about? Honest to God. Since when the hell did governments ever solve anything? Besides ,there's nothing to solve. I'm waiting for some genocidal loon to say there are too many people. What's their plan? And whi would get the chop? Not them. Tyrants trying to control with fear . That's what governments are. As for just stop oil, a bunch of do gooding, middle class old women from leafy suburbs on a guilt trip for being comfortable and lefty,self righteous soya boys thinking they're entitled to stop people going about their lawful business. I'm waiting for the first motorist to really lose it and terminate one of them. It'll happen. The UN,WEF,WHO,IMF, all those globalist organisations need to be disbanded or us leave them. They're nothing more than attempts to centralize control, take power from individual nations and ultimately the people. Hopefully they will fail. It always did in the past.The League of Nations,Napoleon, the Kaiser, Hitler, Stalin...even Alexander the great. It never works. People don't want it and it just removes power from individuals and there is nothing more important than the individual. All this collectivism, it's been tried. Communist, nazis, dictatorships....it never works and with any luck people will rise up. Sadly many will suffer before these globalist sonsofbitches are stopped. They always use fear to terrify people into submission and use it as a reason to centralize control. Feel free to disagree, I don't care. I'm on the side of right and anyone on the other side is on the side of globalists, regulation and loss of liberty. Individualism and individuals create and invent while collectives destroy and ensl*ve. Nothing is more important than freedom and that means individuals. Some people just seem to hate liberty and want to be controlled. We saw it during covid and it's here again. Pick your side for the big dance folks, it's coming. I’m on the side of the climate scientists who’ve dedicated their lives to researching this stuff. Not the YouTubers who think they know better. Name them, the climate scientists. Weak comment. Name them? All of them? Mate, you’ve had a shocker. But he’s right! You have a shocker every day on here and still come back for more ridicule on a daily basis
Introducing Hitler to a climate change discussion?
Okies. "Are you cherry picking? No ,not you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just scan read some stuff. Now that I know Donald Trump is a denier, I know climate change/global warming is true "That'll do it. So on one side we have the science, the scientists who study the climate, research, information, demonstratable peer reviewed studies. On the other we have some lad on YouTube, Trump, a bloke on here, and one or two dodgy scientists paid by the fossil fuels industry. It's a close call. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Becool you are wrong about China. Never thought I would say that, but in terms of green energy and meeting targets, they are smashing it. They're digging fur coal like there's no tomorrow and so is India. Forget about hydrocarbons, we beed them. They're vital not a threat. Each year from 2020 to 2022, China installed about 140GW of new renewable electricity capacity, more than the US, the EU, and India put together. (A gigawatt is enough to power 750,000 homes.) Have you got the growth of co2 from energy generation in China too?" I don’t and not sure about about carbon emissions, would have to look, but as the world's most populous country as of 2022, China could only by severe underdevelopment FAIL to rank first in emissions. Per capita, China emits less than half as much as the US! However, it is actually production not population, that determines emissions and the majority are driven by industry, agriculture, and freight. China's emissions are proportional to its share of the world's industrial manufacturing. And this is arguably the key point, this is manufacturing that the West outsourced to China to make more profit. It can be argued that Western countries' disproportionate level of consumption is at the root of this issue. They didn't solve their carbon problem, they just exported it! On the coal thing, er yeah! It seems they are hedging their bets there! Massive expansion of renewables and nuclear AND coal! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Becool you are wrong about China. Never thought I would say that, but in terms of green energy and meeting targets, they are smashing it. They're digging fur coal like there's no tomorrow and so is India. Forget about hydrocarbons, we beed them. They're vital not a threat. Each year from 2020 to 2022, China installed about 140GW of new renewable electricity capacity, more than the US, the EU, and India put together. (A gigawatt is enough to power 750,000 homes.) Have you got the growth of co2 from energy generation in China too? I don’t and not sure about about carbon emissions, would have to look, but as the world's most populous country as of 2022, China could only by severe underdevelopment FAIL to rank first in emissions. Per capita, China emits less than half as much as the US! However, it is actually production not population, that determines emissions and the majority are driven by industry, agriculture, and freight. China's emissions are proportional to its share of the world's industrial manufacturing. And this is arguably the key point, this is manufacturing that the West outsourced to China to make more profit. It can be argued that Western countries' disproportionate level of consumption is at the root of this issue. They didn't solve their carbon problem, they just exported it! On the coal thing, er yeah! It seems they are hedging their bets there! Massive expansion of renewables and nuclear AND coal!" What do you mean by Carbon problem? I have no idea what you are talking about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Becool you are wrong about China. Never thought I would say that, but in terms of green energy and meeting targets, they are smashing it. They're digging fur coal like there's no tomorrow and so is India. Forget about hydrocarbons, we beed them. They're vital not a threat. Each year from 2020 to 2022, China installed about 140GW of new renewable electricity capacity, more than the US, the EU, and India put together. (A gigawatt is enough to power 750,000 homes.) Have you got the growth of co2 from energy generation in China too? I don’t and not sure about about carbon emissions, would have to look, but as the world's most populous country as of 2022, China could only by severe underdevelopment FAIL to rank first in emissions. Per capita, China emits less than half as much as the US! However, it is actually production not population, that determines emissions and the majority are driven by industry, agriculture, and freight. China's emissions are proportional to its share of the world's industrial manufacturing. And this is arguably the key point, this is manufacturing that the West outsourced to China to make more profit. It can be argued that Western countries' disproportionate level of consumption is at the root of this issue. They didn't solve their carbon problem, they just exported it! On the coal thing, er yeah! It seems they are hedging their bets there! Massive expansion of renewables and nuclear AND coal! What do you mean by Carbon problem? I have no idea what you are talking about." Probably CO2 production. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just scan read some stuff. Now that I know Donald Trump is a denier, I know climate change/global warming is true
That'll do it.
So on one side we have the science, the scientists who study the climate, research, information, demonstratable peer reviewed studies. On the other we have some lad on YouTube, Trump, a bloke on here, and one or two dodgy scientists paid by the fossil fuels industry.
It's a close call."Nice try but I think you'll find there are many experts who study the climate and atmosphere and disagree with this globalist, WEF lead destruction of the west. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Becool you are wrong about China. Never thought I would say that, but in terms of green energy and meeting targets, they are smashing it. They're digging fur coal like there's no tomorrow and so is India. Forget about hydrocarbons, we beed them. They're vital not a threat. Each year from 2020 to 2022, China installed about 140GW of new renewable electricity capacity, more than the US, the EU, and India put together. (A gigawatt is enough to power 750,000 homes.) Have you got the growth of co2 from energy generation in China too? I don’t and not sure about about carbon emissions, would have to look, but as the world's most populous country as of 2022, China could only by severe underdevelopment FAIL to rank first in emissions. Per capita, China emits less than half as much as the US! However, it is actually production not population, that determines emissions and the majority are driven by industry, agriculture, and freight. China's emissions are proportional to its share of the world's industrial manufacturing. And this is arguably the key point, this is manufacturing that the West outsourced to China to make more profit. It can be argued that Western countries' disproportionate level of consumption is at the root of this issue. They didn't solve their carbon problem, they just exported it! On the coal thing, er yeah! It seems they are hedging their bets there! Massive expansion of renewables and nuclear AND coal! What do you mean by Carbon problem? I have no idea what you are talking about. Probably CO2 production." What about CO2 production? What about it? Elaborate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just scan read some stuff. Now that I know Donald Trump is a denier, I know climate change/global warming is true
That'll do it.
So on one side we have the science, the scientists who study the climate, research, information, demonstratable peer reviewed studies. On the other we have some lad on YouTube, Trump, a bloke on here, and one or two dodgy scientists paid by the fossil fuels industry.
It's a close call.
Nice try but I think you'll find there are many experts who study the climate and atmosphere and disagree with this globalist, WEF lead destruction of the west.
"I think that describing very well understood, demonstratable, peer reviewed science as "globalist, WEF lead destruction of the west", probably suggests that you get your information from non-scientific sources. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just scan read some stuff. Now that I know Donald Trump is a denier, I know climate change/global warming is true
That'll do it.
So on one side we have the science, the scientists who study the climate, research, information, demonstratable peer reviewed studies. On the other we have some lad on YouTube, Trump, a bloke on here, and one or two dodgy scientists paid by the fossil fuels industry.
It's a close call.
Nice try but I think you'll find there are many experts who study the climate and atmosphere and disagree with this globalist, WEF lead destruction of the west.
I think that describing very well understood, demonstratable, peer reviewed science as "globalist, WEF lead destruction of the west", probably suggests that you get your information from non-scientific sources. "Nope. Wrong again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just been listening to a interview of a British holiday maker who was caught up in the Greek fires. They have just been evacuated from the island. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66279520 There was one thing she said in the interview on radio that sums up human attitudes. She said that ash had been falling from the sky for days. But people were just getting on with things like normal. But then the sky turned red with fires and buildings started burning. Then everybody panics and started evacuation. I find its useless trying to change people's attitudes on this subject. A lot of the attitudes are politically ingrained." You are using the Bolshivk Broadcasting Corporation as a source???? Really??  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just been listening to a interview of a British holiday maker who was caught up in the Greek fires. They have just been evacuated from the island. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66279520 There was one thing she said in the interview on radio that sums up human attitudes. She said that ash had been falling from the sky for days. But people were just getting on with things like normal. But then the sky turned red with fires and buildings started burning. Then everybody panics and started evacuation. I find its useless trying to change people's attitudes on this subject. A lot of the attitudes are politically ingrained." Canadian wildfires have been burning for months. It's happens . No sense in losing your mind over it. The media sensationalize everything. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just been listening to a interview of a British holiday maker who was caught up in the Greek fires. They have just been evacuated from the island. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66279520 There was one thing she said in the interview on radio that sums up human attitudes. She said that ash had been falling from the sky for days. But people were just getting on with things like normal. But then the sky turned red with fires and buildings started burning. Then everybody panics and started evacuation. I find its useless trying to change people's attitudes on this subject. A lot of the attitudes are politically ingrained. Canadian wildfires have been burning for months. It's happens . No sense in losing your mind over it. The media sensationalize everything." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just been listening to a interview of a British holiday maker who was caught up in the Greek fires. They have just been evacuated from the island. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66279520 There was one thing she said in the interview on radio that sums up human attitudes. She said that ash had been falling from the sky for days. But people were just getting on with things like normal. But then the sky turned red with fires and buildings started burning. Then everybody panics and started evacuation. I find its useless trying to change people's attitudes on this subject. A lot of the attitudes are politically ingrained. You are using the Bolshivk Broadcasting Corporation as a source???? Really?? "Oh dear... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do they still deny climate change?" I deny man made climate change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
