FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > 2016 set to be the warmest year
2016 set to be the warmest year
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Do you think Trump will keep to the Paris accords? " . Not a fucking chance but then I don't think Obama or Clinton would have either nor Mrs may or the EU. . The agreement with the EU and the USA involved selling/shipping oranges from Spain to California and from California to Spain..... I'm not being funny but that's not what you should be discussing if your serious about cutting c02 emissions by 80% in 14 years!. | |||
| |||
"Sadly, I agree the selfish genes in humanity will blow any hope out of the water. In America and even this country we still have debates as to whether anthropegenic climate change is an issue. Basically, its all well and good everyday people doing what they can, but bug buisness and government legislation would have a greater impact if it was brought into line." We can't do it ourselves, we need legislation, just look at plastic bags and the impact 5p has had. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Legislation comes from people wanting legislation on it. It's a bit of a misleader saying "were" helpless we need government legislation to tackle it. Governments aren't keen on implementing legislation that their voters won't like! , Most businesses don't like legislation full stop, they certainly don't like legislation that will prohibit growth or increase costs... There's very little incentives to do it as people perceive the problem to be in the future or just don't think it will be a problem!. . . Most voters are "busy doing other shit" and think superman(trump Farage the EU etc etc) will be along to save them before it turns tits up...... The reality is YOU'VE got to want change to get change, and sometimes you'll have to fight people to get it. On that note the problem is terrible as most people don't want to change and the only governments probably capable of enforcing it on the people are Russia, China, north Korea!. " Well that goes back to the whole debate doesn't it, if Parliament and the government is there to do whats best for the country, or what is popular. | |||
| |||
"Holland gets flooded and we get California's weather. That's what I call a win/win situation. . . there you have it, a win/win situation" Or more likely we get Northern Canada's weather as the handy jetsream gets pushed south  | |||
"Clarkson has it right what's not to like about global warming? " . . Well apart from the spread of diseases like zika... Obviously. Oh and crop failures... Mass migrations obviously.. Sea level rise, flooding, heatwaves, droughts, mass extinction of species, lifeless oceans.... Err yeah we can all get a tan though.... Oh no wait I forgot, warmer temperatures means more water vapour in the air and that means more clouds, oh well we can just be hot and sweaty!... I'm being pedantic but the people that say to you in all honesty.... Oh I wouldn't mind Manchester being a bit warmer  | |||
| |||
| |||
"Clarkson has it right ENCOURAGE GLOBAL WARMING Britons will be encouraged, through discounts and tax relief, to drive 4x4s, Jaguars and BMWs. Not only will this give a valuable boost to our oil industry, but it will encourage climate change. And what's not to like about global warming? Holland gets flooded and we get California's weather. That's what I call a win/win situation. . . there you have it, a win/win situation" So...approximately 80% of the worlds population lives within a destructive and fatal radius of the flooding that would follow with the generally accepted worst case scenario of anthropocentric induced climate change flooding. Quick question, I presume you don't want people to die? In that case all the people affected by a 80ft sea level rise would have to mass migrate - that could be over 6 billion people. How would you stop that mass migration? A wall wont do it, you can try with bullets if you are that inhumane, but you'd eventually loose. Just saying, Clarkson is charismatic, but on science and climate, he's about as well informed as a butcher, and has just as much reason to deny it. | |||
"You do realise its all a load of bollocks, don't you im sure this is just a wind up thread "Climate change or what Clarkson said? | |||
"You do realise its all a load of bollocks, don't you im sure this is just a wind up thread "Well if you have spent you life causing the problem, I'm sure you are going to find it difficult to accept the truth about climate change. Everyone sees themselves as the good guy, not the bad guy. | |||
"You do realise its all a load of bollocks, don't you im sure this is just a wind up thread ". That's pretty much the mainstream view funnily enough  .
In reality it's just science, I don't know why people get offended by it.. I've got a friend who smokes like a chimney who always claims it's bollocks that lung cancer, I asked him why years ago and he said his nan smoked all her life and she was fine!....I just chuckled to myself, don't get me wrong I'm partial to cigars and getting pissed but I wouldn't claim it's harmless coz that's just crazy talk, I don't kid myself that my lifestyle won't cut my life short, it's a Faustian bargain of sorts.
| |||
"Clarkson has it right ENCOURAGE GLOBAL WARMING Britons will be encouraged, through discounts and tax relief, to drive 4x4s, Jaguars and BMWs. Not only will this give a valuable boost to our oil industry, but it will encourage climate change. And what's not to like about global warming? Holland gets flooded and we get California's weather. That's what I call a win/win situation. . . there you have it, a win/win situation So...approximately 80% of the worlds population lives within a destructive and fatal radius of the flooding that would follow with the generally accepted worst case scenario of anthropocentric induced climate change flooding. Quick question, I presume you don't want people to die? In that case all the people affected by a 80ft sea level rise would have to mass migrate - that could be over 6 billion people. How would you stop that mass migration? A wall wont do it, you can try with bullets if you are that inhumane, but you'd eventually loose. Just saying, Clarkson is charismatic, but on science and climate, he's about as well informed as a butcher, and has just as much reason to deny it." Unistudent - your not taking all this as serious are you  | |||
"You do realise its all a load of bollocks, don't you im sure this is just a wind up thread
Well if you have spent you life causing the problem, I'm sure you are going to find it difficult to accept the truth about climate change.
Everyone sees themselves as the good guy, not the bad guy."30 years of supplying oil & gas as well as oil spills and dispersion of refrigerant gases of course in the good guy | |||
 | |||
"Clarkson has it right ENCOURAGE GLOBAL WARMING Britons will be encouraged, through discounts and tax relief, to drive 4x4s, Jaguars and BMWs. Not only will this give a valuable boost to our oil industry, but it will encourage climate change. And what's not to like about global warming? Holland gets flooded and we get California's weather. That's what I call a win/win situation. . . there you have it, a win/win situation So...approximately 80% of the worlds population lives within a destructive and fatal radius of the flooding that would follow with the generally accepted worst case scenario of anthropocentric induced climate change flooding. Quick question, I presume you don't want people to die? In that case all the people affected by a 80ft sea level rise would have to mass migrate - that could be over 6 billion people. How would you stop that mass migration? A wall wont do it, you can try with bullets if you are that inhumane, but you'd eventually loose. Just saying, Clarkson is charismatic, but on science and climate, he's about as well informed as a butcher, and has just as much reason to deny it. Unistudent - your not taking all this as serious are you "Clarckson's views, your views or anthropogenic climate change? The first two, I take anyone's views seriously, even if their views fly in the face of science. The last, of course I take climate science as a serious issue. | |||
"Somebody on here once told me.....c02 is just a trace gas it can't do that much harm!. . I said what makes you think that?... Err dunno it just sounds plausible!. . I said well how does that theory fit with that trace gas carbon monoxide in your house, what would the effect be if you trebled it from 300ppm to 900ppm?. . Do the experiment yourself at home! It's quantifiable and is the same every time.... That's science "Selective memory me thinks. It is incomparable to compare the effect of a poisonous gas on a static human body to the effect of trace levels og CO2 in the earths atmosphere which is effected constantly by variables at the best of times. The ingestion of poison into a low tolerance membrane is of course going to have an effect, whereas assessing the microscopic increases of a gas and note changes to its blanketing effect in a moving atmosphere. Your comparison is not science it is like comparing apples to oranges. Anyway, Donald Trump is the new King of the World and he has just effectively cancelled global warming as a concept. I feel pretty good about that now because we are off on another transatlantic trip in a couple of weeks but this time just for fun - and all free with my accumulated airmiles. My seventh trip of the year and Mrs H's third. | |||
"You do realise its all a load of bollocks, don't you im sure this is just a wind up thread
Well if you have spent you life causing the problem, I'm sure you are going to find it difficult to accept the truth about climate change.
Everyone sees themselves as the good guy, not the bad guy.
30 years of supplying oil & gas as well as oil spills and dispersion of refrigerant gases of course in the good guy"Yeah, well it's not your fault, you didn't create this situation did you? You were only following orders, right? | |||
"Somebody on here once told me.....c02 is just a trace gas it can't do that much harm!. . I said what makes you think that?... Err dunno it just sounds plausible!. . I said well how does that theory fit with that trace gas carbon monoxide in your house, what would the effect be if you trebled it from 300ppm to 900ppm?. . Do the experiment yourself at home! It's quantifiable and is the same every time.... That's science
Selective memory me thinks. It is incomparable to compare the effect of a poisonous gas on a static human body to the effect of trace levels og CO2 in the earths atmosphere which is effected constantly by variables at the best of times. The ingestion of poison into a low tolerance membrane is of course going to have an effect, whereas assessing the microscopic increases of a gas and note changes to its blanketing effect in a moving atmosphere. Your comparison is not science it is like comparing apples to oranges.
Anyway, Donald Trump is the new King of the World and he has just effectively cancelled global warming as a concept. I feel pretty good about that now because we are off on another transatlantic trip in a couple of weeks but this time just for fun - and all free with my accumulated airmiles. My seventh trip of the year and Mrs H's third."I believe in climate change, its clear that you don't, but neither side of the arguement deny that there is finite amount of fossil fuels, so whether you believe in climate change or not, doesn't it make sense to invest in renewables? | |||
| |||
"Somebody on here once told me.....c02 is just a trace gas it can't do that much harm!. . I said what makes you think that?... Err dunno it just sounds plausible!. . I said well how does that theory fit with that trace gas carbon monoxide in your house, what would the effect be if you trebled it from 300ppm to 900ppm?. . Do the experiment yourself at home! It's quantifiable and is the same every time.... That's science
Selective memory me thinks. It is incomparable to compare the effect of a poisonous gas on a static human body to the effect of trace levels og CO2 in the earths atmosphere which is effected constantly by variables at the best of times. The ingestion of poison into a low tolerance membrane is of course going to have an effect, whereas assessing the microscopic increases of a gas and note changes to its blanketing effect in a moving atmosphere. Your comparison is not science it is like comparing apples to oranges.
Anyway, Donald Trump is the new King of the World and he has just effectively cancelled global warming as a concept. I feel pretty good about that now because we are off on another transatlantic trip in a couple of weeks but this time just for fun - and all free with my accumulated airmiles. My seventh trip of the year and Mrs H's third."sorry, no edit button so will start again Do you get a free standard flight that you can also upgrade to business? With united/Continental we can get a free flight to usa but usually buy the standard class flight and upgrade to business using air miles. what company do you fly with and how does their air mile system work, the trouble with air miles loyalty is that you tend to stick with the one company and don't find out how others work | |||
| |||
"Somebody on here once told me.....c02 is just a trace gas it can't do that much harm!. . I said what makes you think that?... Err dunno it just sounds plausible!. . I said well how does that theory fit with that trace gas carbon monoxide in your house, what would the effect be if you trebled it from 300ppm to 900ppm?. . Do the experiment yourself at home! It's quantifiable and is the same every time.... That's science
Selective memory me thinks. It is incomparable to compare the effect of a poisonous gas on a static human body to the effect of trace levels og CO2 in the earths atmosphere which is effected constantly by variables at the best of times. The ingestion of poison into a low tolerance membrane is of course going to have an effect, whereas assessing the microscopic increases of a gas and note changes to its blanketing effect in a moving atmosphere. Your comparison is not science it is like comparing apples to oranges.
Anyway, Donald Trump is the new King of the World and he has just effectively cancelled global warming as a concept. I feel pretty good about that now because we are off on another transatlantic trip in a couple of weeks but this time just for fun - and all free with my accumulated airmiles. My seventh trip of the year and Mrs H's third.
I believe in climate change, its clear that you don't, but neither side of the arguement deny that there is finite amount of fossil fuels, so whether you believe in climate change or not, doesn't it make sense to invest in renewables? "Yes | |||
"Somebody on here once told me.....c02 is just a trace gas it can't do that much harm!. . I said what makes you think that?... Err dunno it just sounds plausible!. . I said well how does that theory fit with that trace gas carbon monoxide in your house, what would the effect be if you trebled it from 300ppm to 900ppm?. . Do the experiment yourself at home! It's quantifiable and is the same every time.... That's science
Selective memory me thinks. It is incomparable to compare the effect of a poisonous gas on a static human body to the effect of trace levels og CO2 in the earths atmosphere which is effected constantly by variables at the best of times. The ingestion of poison into a low tolerance membrane is of course going to have an effect, whereas assessing the microscopic increases of a gas and note changes to its blanketing effect in a moving atmosphere. Your comparison is not science it is like comparing apples to oranges.
Anyway, Donald Trump is the new King of the World and he has just effectively cancelled global warming as a concept. I feel pretty good about that now because we are off on another transatlantic trip in a couple of weeks but this time just for fun - and all free with my accumulated airmiles. My seventh trip of the year and Mrs H's third."Okay, so I don't want to be aggressive in my way f persuading you that CO2 concentrations are an issue - and actually the bigger issue is the amount of methane, but the car analogy was a poor way of illustrating it. Imagine you have a blanket made of 3 materials C02, Methane, and N2O. Each molecule of each of these absorbs a certain amount of heat - methane the most, N20 the next, CO2 the least of the three but still a significant amount. Right, the person under this blanket is the earth - if the person lays there the blanket will not accumulate more materials - maybe the person farts, like volcanoes go off occasionally, and it temporarily adds more CO2 to the blanket but it's actually a minuscule amount. But then the earth (person)decides they are going to work out with the blanket on. Now lets say instead of sweat and heat, the person gives off CO2, N20 and methane. They work out like this for roughly 300 years. This leads to 300 years of methane, CO2, and N20 adding to the blanket. The added amounts of these materials make the blanket thicker, so it retains heat more. Is this making any sense? Or did I go off on one. | |||
"Just wondering what effect the sun is having on the earth?? The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures. "The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years." so how much global warming does the sun put out into the solar system and what effect is it causing should we not worry about the sun going out, after all they say it has already used up more than half its hydrogen fuel supply Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes what happens when this nuclear fusion seizes, no wonder I cannot sleep at night, so much to worry about" The German and Swiss scientists you are refering to are largely cherry picking part of a report and funnily enough refuse to show their tax returns to prove they are not taking donations from lobbyists In short yes, the sun is burning brighter. But we wont actually feel that heat radiation in our atmosphere for another couple of million years (cause it has to travel light years to reach us)...and when it happens it should warm over a few thousand years... The only reason we know the sun is burning brighter is due to telescopes which measure light radiation output thousands of light years away, which we couldn't detect to the naked eye. Basically the sun is a factor for humanity to worry about in a million years. And when it burns out, we as a species will either be extinct, have evolved, r hopefully taken to space travel. | |||
"Just wondering what effect the sun is having on the earth?? The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures. "The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years." so how much global warming does the sun put out into the solar system and what effect is it causing should we not worry about the sun going out, after all they say it has already used up more than half its hydrogen fuel supply Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes what happens when this nuclear fusion seizes, no wonder I cannot sleep at night, so much to worry about The German and Swiss scientists you are refering to are largely cherry picking part of a report and funnily enough refuse to show their tax returns to prove they are not taking donations from lobbyists In short yes, the sun is burning brighter. But we wont actually feel that heat radiation in our atmosphere for another couple of million years (cause it has to travel light years to reach us)...and when it happens it should warm over a few thousand years... The only reason we know the sun is burning brighter is due to telescopes which measure light radiation output thousands of light years away, which we couldn't detect to the naked eye. Basically the sun is a factor for humanity to worry about in a million years. And when it burns out, we as a species will either be extinct, have evolved, r hopefully taken to space travel." what about your childrens, childrens, children if you know what I mean, have you no concern for them | |||
"Somebody on here once told me.....c02 is just a trace gas it can't do that much harm!. . I said what makes you think that?... Err dunno it just sounds plausible!. . I said well how does that theory fit with that trace gas carbon monoxide in your house, what would the effect be if you trebled it from 300ppm to 900ppm?. . Do the experiment yourself at home! It's quantifiable and is the same every time.... That's science
Selective memory me thinks. It is incomparable to compare the effect of a poisonous gas on a static human body to the effect of trace levels og CO2 in the earths atmosphere which is effected constantly by variables at the best of times. The ingestion of poison into a low tolerance membrane is of course going to have an effect, whereas assessing the microscopic increases of a gas and note changes to its blanketing effect in a moving atmosphere. Your comparison is not science it is like comparing apples to oranges.
Anyway, Donald Trump is the new King of the World and he has just effectively cancelled global warming as a concept. I feel pretty good about that now because we are off on another transatlantic trip in a couple of weeks but this time just for fun - and all free with my accumulated airmiles. My seventh trip of the year and Mrs H's third.". Your still doing it lol.... So you belive the science that a trace gas has an effect on human tissue but you simply cannot belive the science that a trace gas has on an atmosphere!!.. the mind simply boggles at your logic | |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"Just wondering what effect the sun is having on the earth?? The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures. "The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years." so how much global warming does the sun put out into the solar system and what effect is it causing should we not worry about the sun going out, after all they say it has already used up more than half its hydrogen fuel supply Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes what happens when this nuclear fusion seizes, no wonder I cannot sleep at night, so much to worry about The German and Swiss scientists you are refering to are largely cherry picking part of a report and funnily enough refuse to show their tax returns to prove they are not taking donations from lobbyists In short yes, the sun is burning brighter. But we wont actually feel that heat radiation in our atmosphere for another couple of million years (cause it has to travel light years to reach us)...and when it happens it should warm over a few thousand years... The only reason we know the sun is burning brighter is due to telescopes which measure light radiation output thousands of light years away, which we couldn't detect to the naked eye. Basically the sun is a factor for humanity to worry about in a million years. And when it burns out, we as a species will either be extinct, have evolved, r hopefully taken to space travel." . Actually all independent research shows the sun has been cooling since the 70s , it's one of the first thing scientists looked at decades ago to see where the observable temperature increase was coming from, there has been literally hundreds of papers wrote over the last decades discounting extra solar activity as the source.... This is not saying that the sun doesn't go through cycles and that we MAY be at the latter stage of a sun "high" (it's inconclusive at best) but it just doesn't account for the extra heat were acquiring over the last century or fit in with the speed of change...... The only "culprit" that fits the data perfectly is I'm afraid c02 increases which is why scientists are "very confident" of the theory. Ps sun light takes about 7 minutes to reach earth | |||
" Ps sun light takes about 7 minutes to reach earth" But at night time sometimes it can take hours for the light to get here. | |||
" Ps sun light takes about 7 minutes to reach earth But at night time sometimes it can take hours for the light to get here. "don't you carry a torch? | |||
"Tell you what guys, lets all work as a team, you lot do the worrying and conservation of fossil fuels for us all and I will do the partying and having fun to equal things out now that's what I call team work now folks, get back to worrying and jotting down your concerns ". I hate to tell you this mate but I'm not the sit at home worrying about stuff type, I like science, I read it because I love it, having read alot of it I'm afraid I party harder than I would if I hadn't... Sometimes knowing stuff altars your outlook don't you think? | |||
" Ps sun light takes about 7 minutes to reach earth But at night time sometimes it can take hours for the light to get here.
don't you carry a torch?"I do, but its solar powered | |||
" Ps sun light takes about 7 minutes to reach earth But at night time sometimes it can take hours for the light to get here.
don't you carry a torch?
I do, but its solar powered "how many times do you have to be told not to keep it in the drawer | |||
"Just wondering what effect the sun is having on the earth?? The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures. "The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years." so how much global warming does the sun put out into the solar system and what effect is it causing should we not worry about the sun going out, after all they say it has already used up more than half its hydrogen fuel supply Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes what happens when this nuclear fusion seizes, no wonder I cannot sleep at night, so much to worry about The German and Swiss scientists you are refering to are largely cherry picking part of a report and funnily enough refuse to show their tax returns to prove they are not taking donations from lobbyists In short yes, the sun is burning brighter. But we wont actually feel that heat radiation in our atmosphere for another couple of million years (cause it has to travel light years to reach us)...and when it happens it should warm over a few thousand years... The only reason we know the sun is burning brighter is due to telescopes which measure light radiation output thousands of light years away, which we couldn't detect to the naked eye. Basically the sun is a factor for humanity to worry about in a million years. And when it burns out, we as a species will either be extinct, have evolved, r hopefully taken to space travel.. Actually all independent research shows the sun has been cooling since the 70s , it's one of the first thing scientists looked at decades ago to see where the observable temperature increase was coming from, there has been literally hundreds of papers wrote over the last decades discounting extra solar activity as the source.... This is not saying that the sun doesn't go through cycles and that we MAY be at the latter stage of a sun "high" (it's inconclusive at best) but it just doesn't account for the extra heat were acquiring over the last century or fit in with the speed of change...... The only "culprit" that fits the data perfectly is I'm afraid c02 increases which is why scientists are "very confident" of the theory. Ps sun light takes about 7 minutes to reach earth" I honestly don't know how I made a slip up on the speed of light travelling t earth - gonna blame it on 3 days with no caffeine. But yes, agreed that CO2 is the main issue we should be looking at here - and methane given that livestock farming CO2 and methane production go hand in hand. Didn't know about the earlier research either, going to take a look atthat | |||
"Somebody on here once told me.....c02 is just a trace gas it can't do that much harm!. . I said what makes you think that?... Err dunno it just sounds plausible!. . I said well how does that theory fit with that trace gas carbon monoxide in your house, what would the effect be if you trebled it from 300ppm to 900ppm?. . Do the experiment yourself at home! It's quantifiable and is the same every time.... That's science
Selective memory me thinks. It is incomparable to compare the effect of a poisonous gas on a static human body to the effect of trace levels og CO2 in the earths atmosphere which is effected constantly by variables at the best of times. The ingestion of poison into a low tolerance membrane is of course going to have an effect, whereas assessing the microscopic increases of a gas and note changes to its blanketing effect in a moving atmosphere. Your comparison is not science it is like comparing apples to oranges.
Anyway, Donald Trump is the new King of the World and he has just effectively cancelled global warming as a concept. I feel pretty good about that now because we are off on another transatlantic trip in a couple of weeks but this time just for fun - and all free with my accumulated airmiles. My seventh trip of the year and Mrs H's third..
Your still doing it lol....
So you belive the science that a trace gas has an effect on human tissue but you simply cannot belive the science that a trace gas has on an atmosphere!!.. the mind simply boggles at your logic
"If you dont know the difference between a human lung and the earths atmosphere there is no hope for you - no matter how much you study. PS - Just been out in the Range Rover. | |||
"Somebody on here once told me.....c02 is just a trace gas it can't do that much harm!. . I said what makes you think that?... Err dunno it just sounds plausible!. . I said well how does that theory fit with that trace gas carbon monoxide in your house, what would the effect be if you trebled it from 300ppm to 900ppm?. . Do the experiment yourself at home! It's quantifiable and is the same every time.... That's science
Selective memory me thinks. It is incomparable to compare the effect of a poisonous gas on a static human body to the effect of trace levels og CO2 in the earths atmosphere which is effected constantly by variables at the best of times. The ingestion of poison into a low tolerance membrane is of course going to have an effect, whereas assessing the microscopic increases of a gas and note changes to its blanketing effect in a moving atmosphere. Your comparison is not science it is like comparing apples to oranges.
Anyway, Donald Trump is the new King of the World and he has just effectively cancelled global warming as a concept. I feel pretty good about that now because we are off on another transatlantic trip in a couple of weeks but this time just for fun - and all free with my accumulated airmiles. My seventh trip of the year and Mrs H's third..
Your still doing it lol....
So you belive the science that a trace gas has an effect on human tissue but you simply cannot belive the science that a trace gas has on an atmosphere!!.. the mind simply boggles at your logic
If you dont know the difference between a human lung and the earths atmosphere there is no hope for you - no matter how much you study.
PS - Just been out in the Range Rover."Was it you that overtook my Audi?.....bastard | |||
"Somebody on here once told me.....c02 is just a trace gas it can't do that much harm!. . I said what makes you think that?... Err dunno it just sounds plausible!. . I said well how does that theory fit with that trace gas carbon monoxide in your house, what would the effect be if you trebled it from 300ppm to 900ppm?. . Do the experiment yourself at home! It's quantifiable and is the same every time.... That's science
Selective memory me thinks. It is incomparable to compare the effect of a poisonous gas on a static human body to the effect of trace levels og CO2 in the earths atmosphere which is effected constantly by variables at the best of times. The ingestion of poison into a low tolerance membrane is of course going to have an effect, whereas assessing the microscopic increases of a gas and note changes to its blanketing effect in a moving atmosphere. Your comparison is not science it is like comparing apples to oranges.
Anyway, Donald Trump is the new King of the World and he has just effectively cancelled global warming as a concept. I feel pretty good about that now because we are off on another transatlantic trip in a couple of weeks but this time just for fun - and all free with my accumulated airmiles. My seventh trip of the year and Mrs H's third..
Your still doing it lol....
So you belive the science that a trace gas has an effect on human tissue but you simply cannot belive the science that a trace gas has on an atmosphere!!.. the mind simply boggles at your logic
If you dont know the difference between a human lung and the earths atmosphere there is no hope for you - no matter how much you study.
PS - Just been out in the Range Rover.". Trump logic..... | |||
.
NASA don't know shit, the national academics of metrology, geology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy..... You don't know trump logic, you bunch of overpaid, over educted Government stooge monkeys.... Trump trump trump.
I honestly worry about the downright stupidity of the average nitwit voter | |||
"I'm going to use trump logic i like it .
NASA don't know shit, the national academics of metrology, geology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy..... You don't know trump logic, you bunch of overpaid, over educted Government stooge monkeys.... Trump trump trump.
I honestly worry about the downright stupidity of the average nitwit voter "Well Churchill said that the best arguement against democracy was a 5 minute conversation with your average voter. This is why I come back to the point I made earlier, you cant leave something as important as climate change to the general public. I can tell you doors are very passionate about climate change, but loads of people aren't. That's why we need the government to legislate for us. After all, it is hardly ever us as the voter in isolation that is causing emissions. Let's take for example blaming the individual for leaving a light on in a room. Well light bulbs used to be inefficient, until those bulbs were legislated against, but the amount of emissions from that act of leaving a light on, is also great affected by the manner of power generation chosen by the electricity company which is largely out of the hands of the consumers. Or take the emmisions of someone driving to work. Are the emmisions the fault of the driver, or the car manufacturer who didn't make a more efficient engine because there was no statutory regulation telling them they had to? Or above people have talked about flying around the world, people don't book their holidays based upon the energy efficiency of the plane, that is up to the airline. So the consumer doesn't have much choice in the emissions they are creating, and most don't have the inclination to do it. They want to reduce their carbon footprint, but they want someone else to do the work for them, ie governments legislating companies to do the hard work for us. | |||
"I'm going to use trump logic i like it .
NASA don't know shit, the national academics of metrology, geology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy..... You don't know trump logic, you bunch of overpaid, over educted Government stooge monkeys.... Trump trump trump.
I honestly worry about the downright stupidity of the average nitwit voter
Well Churchill said that the best arguement against democracy was a 5 minute conversation with your average voter.
This is why I come back to the point I made earlier, you cant leave something as important as climate change to the general public. I can tell you doors are very passionate about climate change, but loads of people aren't. That's why we need the government to legislate for us.
After all, it is hardly ever us as the voter in isolation that is causing emissions. Let's take for example blaming the individual for leaving a light on in a room. Well light bulbs used to be inefficient, until those bulbs were legislated against, but the amount of emissions from that act of leaving a light on, is also great affected by the manner of power generation chosen by the electricity company which is largely out of the hands of the consumers.
Or take the emmisions of someone driving to work. Are the emmisions the fault of the driver, or the car manufacturer who didn't make a more efficient engine because there was no statutory regulation telling them they had to?
Or above people have talked about flying around the world, people don't book their holidays based upon the energy efficiency of the plane, that is up to the airline. So the consumer doesn't have much choice in the emissions they are creating, and most don't have the inclination to do it. They want to reduce their carbon footprint, but they want someone else to do the work for them, ie governments legislating companies to do the hard work for us. "That's the downside of allowing democracy. The government has to be given the mandate to do so (which I would btw) and how vigourously to do so. | |||
"I'm going to use trump logic i like it .
NASA don't know shit, the national academics of metrology, geology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy..... You don't know trump logic, you bunch of overpaid, over educted Government stooge monkeys.... Trump trump trump.
I honestly worry about the downright stupidity of the average nitwit voter
Well Churchill said that the best arguement against democracy was a 5 minute conversation with your average voter.
This is why I come back to the point I made earlier, you cant leave something as important as climate change to the general public. I can tell you doors are very passionate about climate change, but loads of people aren't. That's why we need the government to legislate for us.
After all, it is hardly ever us as the voter in isolation that is causing emissions. Let's take for example blaming the individual for leaving a light on in a room. Well light bulbs used to be inefficient, until those bulbs were legislated against, but the amount of emissions from that act of leaving a light on, is also great affected by the manner of power generation chosen by the electricity company which is largely out of the hands of the consumers.
Or take the emmisions of someone driving to work. Are the emmisions the fault of the driver, or the car manufacturer who didn't make a more efficient engine because there was no statutory regulation telling them they had to?
Or above people have talked about flying around the world, people don't book their holidays based upon the energy efficiency of the plane, that is up to the airline. So the consumer doesn't have much choice in the emissions they are creating, and most don't have the inclination to do it. They want to reduce their carbon footprint, but they want someone else to do the work for them, ie governments legislating companies to do the hard work for us. "Scotland beats climate emissions reductions target six years early Scotland’s climate emissions have broken through a landmark reductions target six years early after a warm winter helped drive down energy use. The Scottish climate change secretary, Roseanna Cunningham is doing her job well and being supported by all Scots Scotland is the place to live, Fantastic landscape &scenery, fantastic large homes with acres of land at a reasonable price, great jobs, good living, free tuition fees (tuition fees will be paid for you by the SAAS) free prescription and counter medications, free eye tests, free ‘personal care’ in old age including electric, council tax & rent, oh yes I almost forgot "Free FRESH air which is fantastic to breath in and fantastic for fuelling your cars, engines perform better on cool crisp fresh air
but pssst, don't tell anyone, its Scotlands own little secret, we will continue to tell you all how hard hit we are up here in Scotland, its okay for you Londoners having lots of friends and company on then packed tube trains | |||
"I'm going to use trump logic i like it .
NASA don't know shit, the national academics of metrology, geology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy..... You don't know trump logic, you bunch of overpaid, over educted Government stooge monkeys.... Trump trump trump.
I honestly worry about the downright stupidity of the average nitwit voter
Well Churchill said that the best arguement against democracy was a 5 minute conversation with your average voter.
This is why I come back to the point I made earlier, you cant leave something as important as climate change to the general public. I can tell you doors are very passionate about climate change, but loads of people aren't. That's why we need the government to legislate for us.
After all, it is hardly ever us as the voter in isolation that is causing emissions. Let's take for example blaming the individual for leaving a light on in a room. Well light bulbs used to be inefficient, until those bulbs were legislated against, but the amount of emissions from that act of leaving a light on, is also great affected by the manner of power generation chosen by the electricity company which is largely out of the hands of the consumers.
Or take the emmisions of someone driving to work. Are the emmisions the fault of the driver, or the car manufacturer who didn't make a more efficient engine because there was no statutory regulation telling them they had to?
Or above people have talked about flying around the world, people don't book their holidays based upon the energy efficiency of the plane, that is up to the airline. So the consumer doesn't have much choice in the emissions they are creating, and most don't have the inclination to do it. They want to reduce their carbon footprint, but they want someone else to do the work for them, ie governments legislating companies to do the hard work for us.
Scotland beats climate emissions reductions target six years early
Scotland’s climate emissions have broken through a landmark reductions target six years early after a warm winter helped drive down energy use.
The Scottish climate change secretary, Roseanna Cunningham is doing her job well and being supported by all Scots
Scotland is the place to live, Fantastic landscape &scenery, fantastic large homes with acres of land at a reasonable price, great jobs, good living, free tuition fees (tuition fees will be paid for you by the SAAS) free prescription and counter medications, free eye tests, free ‘personal care’ in old age including electric, council tax & rent,
oh yes I almost forgot "Free FRESH air which is fantastic to breath in and fantastic for fuelling your cars, engines perform better on cool crisp fresh air
but pssst, don't tell anyone, its Scotlands own little secret, we will continue to tell you all how hard hit we are up here in Scotland, its okay for you Londoners having lots of friends and company on then packed tube trains "You forgot other quotes from the article that you plagiarized such as this one. "Apart from the electricity and waste sectors, it’s hard to see a bold fingerprint of Scottish government policy driving the transition to a zero-carbon economy,” he said. “This target has been met because of the loss of heavy industry, warmer winter weather, our changing share of European emissions credits and some government policies" And this one: "Individual action is important but Scottish government needs to lead with the big policies for major emission reductions. The challenge ahead is to tackle the sectors where there’s been little change to date, like transport, where our emissions remain stalled at 1990 levels, and housing, where emissions have reduced only 1% since the Scottish Climate Change Act was passed" So the reduction is at least in part due to the loss of industry in Scotland, a fantastic way to reduce emmisions, make everyone unemployed! https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/14/scotland-beats-climate-emissions-reductions-target-six-years-early?CMP=share_btn_link | |||
| |||
| |||
"I'm going to use trump logic i like it .
NASA don't know shit, the national academics of metrology, geology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy..... You don't know trump logic, you bunch of overpaid, over educted Government stooge monkeys.... Trump trump trump.
I honestly worry about the downright stupidity of the average nitwit voter
Well Churchill said that the best arguement against democracy was a 5 minute conversation with your average voter.
This is why I come back to the point I made earlier, you cant leave something as important as climate change to the general public. I can tell you doors are very passionate about climate change, but loads of people aren't. That's why we need the government to legislate for us.
After all, it is hardly ever us as the voter in isolation that is causing emissions. Let's take for example blaming the individual for leaving a light on in a room. Well light bulbs used to be inefficient, until those bulbs were legislated against, but the amount of emissions from that act of leaving a light on, is also great affected by the manner of power generation chosen by the electricity company which is largely out of the hands of the consumers.
Or take the emmisions of someone driving to work. Are the emmisions the fault of the driver, or the car manufacturer who didn't make a more efficient engine because there was no statutory regulation telling them they had to?
Or above people have talked about flying around the world, people don't book their holidays based upon the energy efficiency of the plane, that is up to the airline. So the consumer doesn't have much choice in the emissions they are creating, and most don't have the inclination to do it. They want to reduce their carbon footprint, but they want someone else to do the work for them, ie governments legislating companies to do the hard work for us. ". I've always firmly belived in heavy regulation primarily as the best way to overcome human instinct..... We've seen what "light touch regulation" does for the banking industry?. The trouble is government don't push regulation because businesses hate regulation, if the people don't push it then there's no chance of it happening. Take mobile phone usage in cars for instance, the evidence has been there for years about its dangerousness, it's basically on a par with drink driving, yet look at the regulation, drink driving gets a 500 quid fine and loss of licence for a year .... Mobile phone use gets a 100 fine with points and that's the new legislation before that you could just pay 60 quid and carry on regardless..... And you know why? Coz business likes you being on your phone, people like being on they're phone they just don't belive the evidence its dangerous because they've done it years and not crashed!!!! Wow | |||
" I've always firmly belived in heavy regulation primarily as the best way to overcome human instinct..... We've seen what "light touch regulation" does for the banking industry?. The trouble is government don't push regulation because businesses hate regulation, if the people don't push it then there's no chance of it happening. Take mobile phone usage in cars for instance, the evidence has been there for years about its dangerousness, it's basically on a par with drink driving, yet look at the regulation, drink driving gets a 500 quid fine and loss of licence for a year .... Mobile phone use gets a 100 fine with points and that's the new legislation before that you could just pay 60 quid and carry on regardless..... And you know why? Coz business likes you being on your phone, people like being on they're phone they just don't belive the evidence its dangerous because they've done it years and not crashed!!!! Wow "I think splitting it as a 'business don't like regulation' is too simplistic. People in general don't like the cost consequences, and potentially job consequences. Businesses will need to be pushed into implementing changes. But that adds cost. That adds cost to the product. If that is what is needed and people understand that, then do it. Another problem is that foreign companies have much slacker requirements than us. Again, China is shocking. Very low costs helped by very low environmental costs. Therefore their goods have an unfair advantage over EU goods built in a safer working environment in a more environmental way. But people buy cheap. If Uk/EU manufacturers are forced into these regulations and the consequential cost then goods not complying should be barred / have a punitive tariff added. Don't agree with the phone thing being a business issue, that is down to stupid people, who should be punished accordingly like you say. | |||
" I've always firmly belived in heavy regulation primarily as the best way to overcome human instinct..... We've seen what "light touch regulation" does for the banking industry?. The trouble is government don't push regulation because businesses hate regulation, if the people don't push it then there's no chance of it happening. Take mobile phone usage in cars for instance, the evidence has been there for years about its dangerousness, it's basically on a par with drink driving, yet look at the regulation, drink driving gets a 500 quid fine and loss of licence for a year .... Mobile phone use gets a 100 fine with points and that's the new legislation before that you could just pay 60 quid and carry on regardless..... And you know why? Coz business likes you being on your phone, people like being on they're phone they just don't belive the evidence its dangerous because they've done it years and not crashed!!!! Wow
I think splitting it as a 'business don't like regulation' is too simplistic.
People in general don't like the cost consequences, and potentially job consequences.
Businesses will need to be pushed into implementing changes. But that adds cost. That adds cost to the product. If that is what is needed and people understand that, then do it.
Another problem is that foreign companies have much slacker requirements than us. Again, China is shocking. Very low costs helped by very low environmental costs. Therefore their goods have an unfair advantage over EU goods built in a safer working environment in a more environmental way.
But people buy cheap. If Uk/EU manufacturers are forced into these regulations and the consequential cost then goods not complying should be barred / have a punitive tariff added.
Don't agree with the phone thing being a business issue, that is down to stupid people, who should be punished accordingly like you say.". Well yes I agree i was abbreviating it for length but your absolutely right we the west have exported all our environmental disasters to China, that's a deliberate act by government and multi nationals, they don't want the extra cost so they've exported our genuine concerns to foreigners, it's exactly the same as textiles manufacturers here 150 years ago being told you can no longer employ children.... Hooray aren't we good and liberal.... Oh actually we meant you can no longer employ British children, Bangladeshi ones are fine!. . . It's criminality at the highest level and it's been going on for decades and to be honest it's why we are where are with trump and brexit and I'm not saying there going to fix it, I'm just saying it's one of the reasons | |||
| |||
" I've always firmly belived in heavy regulation primarily as the best way to overcome human instinct..... We've seen what "light touch regulation" does for the banking industry?. The trouble is government don't push regulation because businesses hate regulation, if the people don't push it then there's no chance of it happening. Take mobile phone usage in cars for instance, the evidence has been there for years about its dangerousness, it's basically on a par with drink driving, yet look at the regulation, drink driving gets a 500 quid fine and loss of licence for a year .... Mobile phone use gets a 100 fine with points and that's the new legislation before that you could just pay 60 quid and carry on regardless..... And you know why? Coz business likes you being on your phone, people like being on they're phone they just don't belive the evidence its dangerous because they've done it years and not crashed!!!! Wow
I think splitting it as a 'business don't like regulation' is too simplistic.
People in general don't like the cost consequences, and potentially job consequences.
Businesses will need to be pushed into implementing changes. But that adds cost. That adds cost to the product. If that is what is needed and people understand that, then do it.
Another problem is that foreign companies have much slacker requirements than us. Again, China is shocking. Very low costs helped by very low environmental costs. Therefore their goods have an unfair advantage over EU goods built in a safer working environment in a more environmental way.
But people buy cheap. If Uk/EU manufacturers are forced into these regulations and the consequential cost then goods not complying should be barred / have a punitive tariff added.
Don't agree with the phone thing being a business issue, that is down to stupid people, who should be punished accordingly like you say."At last ! Why do people give China a free ride all the time ? Horrible regime !!! | |||
