Congratulations Wickiwacky, you have compressed the most disingenuous ignorance within one paragraph I have ever seen in over twenty years access to the internet.
Where shall we begin:
'The thing the science deniers have yet to produce is EVIDENCE. '
Well for one thing, its being assumed by AGW groupies that the burden of proof relies with us pejoratively described 'deniers'. The use of the word 'denier', beyond the boundaries of this discussion is linked to other paradigm questioning fields. As such the usage of 'denier' is chosen for debating impact. AGW relies on debating rhetoric in the public arena and not critical thinking. Blah blah - get over it snowflake
'Not one shred of data has been shown on this forum or anywhere else.' I''m not going to bother reexamining this mostly ship of fools thread. Suffice to say 'Channel 4' documentary and 'Jolly Hockey Sticks'. Once again also BURDEN OF PROOF.
The Hockey Stick was a manufactured scandal about nothing and investigations have come to that conclusion
'The deniers are politically or financially motivated - not concerned with the truth or our future safety or prosperity. ' Al Gore, the media prophet of the AGW theory has an oil background and is heavily interested in carbon cap and trade. Oil and banking benefit from restricting their commodity, just as the oil companies benefited from the feigned outrage of Arabs in the Yom Kippur war that was contrived to raise oil prices. (See William Engdahl) Further the supposed divestment of the Rockefellers from oil and supporting 'green causes' is also a psyop. It echoes the Standard Oil monopoly breakup that saw them making more money. The important thing about oil is it's petro dollar aspect.
More bollocks based on conspiracy theories.
If you think that temperature is not going up - show us your temperature measurements. That is neither here or there. Piers Corbyn amongst others have demonstrated the sun as the driver of climate. If you are not a paid shill I feel sorry for the small intellectual cell in which you've confined yourself, if a shill there is a hot place in Hades waiting for you.
There is no Hell - grow up.
If you think that co2 is not going up - show us the data
Otherwise it is just ignorant speculation... Carbon dioxide is not the most important greenhouse gas. Show us the data? That's rich coming from the hockey sticks brigade. No, you are ignorant. God knows what intellectual or moral plane you live on to spout so much nonsense.
Well you have thrown a few insults around but still no data or evidence. You choose to trust Piers Corbyn (whoever he is) but reject the overwhelming majority of experts who have studied climate science their whole lives. They have also considered all the alternatives to co2 and ruled them out on the basis of measurements, observations and data. Really Ziggy - I feel sorry for you - being so closeminded and out of touch with reality must be a burden.
Man made global warming=politically motivated pseudoscience with a multi million dollar global carbon tax as the end game. Co2 is plant food. It’s harmless. Use your air conditioners and drive your cars. It’s going to be alright
This is like the guesses of a 5 year old who knows literally nothing about the science and has a punt based on something he has heard and partially understood.
This forum is about objective facts and how to deal with them, not some sort of attempt to ignore the problem by saying it is all about someone else. Ironically, you live in a country which has made good progress and is a good example to others.
No Asian country has ever reached the level ofCO2 emissions per capita that the US, Canada, Australia and a small group of Arab countries have maintained in recent decades (India is only at about 10%). Even the reduction in US CO2 emissions per capita is significantly due to the trend towards moving manufacturing to China and other Asian countries. China is beginning to catch on that the lethal effects of fossil fuel pollution are worth reducing and India will very likely follow. Remember that it turns out that a massive shift to renewables is financially justified by the health benefits alone, by standard calculations.
The whole world has to take responsibility for CO2 emissions with a common goal.
oil company executives making the decision for their companies are not "a few associates". that's why the companies are getting sued, now, for lying about it. all posting here live in a system based on fossil fuels, which you seem to think is the only way to obtain energy. you're wrong.
I say its all due to a few oil company associates from the 1970s/80s, absolutely no connection with the Asian population explosion from the 1950s.
All posting here blameless as nobody uses fossil to fuel their ever increasing consumer lifestyles.
Population is a concern in terms of resources - food, water and building materials for example. But in terms of this forum, extra people doesn't necessarily mean extra co2 emissions. If more and more renewable power is used then emissions could go down as population increases.
As for the consumer lifestyle, it is not sacred is it? Or course we all need certain items but just buying ever greater quantities of useless stuff (mostly packaged in plastic) isn't the only way to live.
If you are arguing we should keep birth rates down and buy less (useless) stuff then we might be in agreement. But it is western lifestyles rather than Asian population which has driven co2 emissions.
There is no reason that modern economies cannot absorb the shift to renewables without much pain. It may be even easier for some developing economies, as renewable energy has become an economical addition rather than a replacement, eg as a source of electricity for the devices associated with the modern world. [There is a similar pattern with telephony, where there are now regions with no landlines where most people have mobile phones].
Energy storage has to become a major industry, IMO. Which technologies will win is not clear, but it is this which will make global sustainability and high standards of living possible. The only alternative (or a useful complement) is to have such huge, diverse grids that most variations in supply-demand matching can be absorbed. It is never the case that the sun is not shining and no wind is blowing anywhere (perhaps the nearest is during a winter night, when the main need is heat, which can certainly be stored quite efficiently from the day (the reverse of usual storage heaters, taking advantage of cheap electricity at night). High insulation standards also make heating requirements minimal in most climates.
Curious how alarmists firmly believe in agw, yet become equally alarmed at the notion many more of the a population within agw is an issue.
And re per capita emissions China already above UK.
China currently building coal fired plants across many Asian countries, not much choice really if wishing to satisfy consumer demand of increasing populations.
your first point is incoherent. if you are trying to argue that people can't and don't recognize that both are problems, you are wrong. if you are trying to argue that the main problem is overpopulation in the third world, you are also wrong. per capita doubt china is above the uk, and it is also cutting back on coal in the future.
87's whole worldview is incoherent. He thinks a little bit of warming will do us good (or no harm anyway) but is blithely oblivious to the fact that thousands of people died in heatwaves in Russia in 2017 (not usually thought of as a hot place). Heatwaves will become more common due to AGW.
For someone who supposedly accepts the science he has an odd way of responding to the facts.
Congratulations Wickiwacky, you have compressed the most disingenuous ignorance within one paragraph I have ever seen in over twenty years access to the internet.
Where shall we begin:
'The thing the science deniers have yet to produce is EVIDENCE. '
Well for one thing, its being assumed by AGW groupies that the burden of proof relies with us pejoratively described 'deniers'. The use of the word 'denier', beyond the boundaries of this discussion is linked to other paradigm questioning fields. As such the usage of 'denier' is chosen for debating impact. AGW relies on debating rhetoric in the public arena and not critical thinking. Blah blah - get over it snowflake
'Not one shred of data has been shown on this forum or anywhere else.'
I''m not going to bother reexamining this mostly ship of fools thread. Suffice to say 'Channel 4' documentary and 'Jolly Hockey Sticks'. Once again also BURDEN OF PROOF.
The Hockey Stick was a manufactured scandal about nothing and investigations have come to that conclusion
'The deniers are politically or financially motivated - not concerned with the truth or our future safety or prosperity. ' Al Gore, the media prophet of the AGW theory has an oil background and is heavily interested in carbon cap and trade. Oil and banking benefit from restricting their commodity, just as the oil companies benefited from the feigned outrage of Arabs in the Yom Kippur war that was contrived to raise oil prices. (See William Engdahl) Further the supposed divestment of the Rockefellers from oil and supporting 'green causes' is also a psyop. It echoes the Standard Oil monopoly breakup that saw them making more money. The important thing about oil is it's petro dollar aspect.
More bollocks based on conspiracy theories.
If you think that temperature is not going up - show us your temperature measurements.
That is neither here or there. Piers Corbyn amongst others have demonstrated the sun as the driver of climate. If you are not a paid shill I feel sorry for the small intellectual cell in which you've confined yourself, if a shill there is a hot place in Hades waiting for you.
There is no Hell - grow up.
If you think that co2 is not going up - show us the data
Otherwise it is just ignorant speculation...
Carbon dioxide is not the most important greenhouse gas. Show us the data? That's rich coming from the hockey sticks brigade. No, you are ignorant. God knows what intellectual or moral plane you live on to spout so much nonsense.
Well you have thrown a few insults around but still no data or evidence. You choose to trust Piers Corbyn (whoever he is) but reject the overwhelming majority of experts who have studied climate science their whole lives. They have also considered all the alternatives to co2 and ruled them out on the basis of measurements, observations and data. Really Ziggy - I feel sorry for you - being so closeminded and out of touch with reality must be a burden.
This is like the guesses of a 5 year old who knows literally nothing about the science and has a punt based on something he has heard and partially understood.
No, this makes literally no sense at all.
Could it be that computer viruses are spread between keyboards by people shaking hands?
(Just thought I'd return the favour).
climate isn't daily weather in a specific location william.
Winter was 1.8 degrees above average in North America this year.
Less firewood required.
More communities destroyed by permafrost melt in Alaska.
Russian builders will be kept busy.
Your taxes will go up to pay Russian builders.
I say its all due to a few oil company associates from the 1970s/80s, absolutely no connection with the Asian population explosion from the 1950s.
All posting here blameless as nobody uses fossil to fuel their ever increasing consumer lifestyles.
This forum is about objective facts and how to deal with them, not some sort of attempt to ignore the problem by saying it is all about someone else. Ironically, you live in a country which has made good progress and is a good example to others.
No Asian country has ever reached the level of CO2 emissions per capita that the US, Canada, Australia and a small group of Arab countries have maintained in recent decades (India is only at about 10%). Even the reduction in US CO2 emissions per capita is significantly due to the trend towards moving manufacturing to China and other Asian countries. China is beginning to catch on that the lethal effects of fossil fuel pollution are worth reducing and India will very likely follow. Remember that it turns out that a massive shift to renewables is financially justified by the health benefits alone, by standard calculations.
The whole world has to take responsibility for CO2 emissions with a common goal.
oil company executives making the decision for their companies are not "a few associates". that's why the companies are getting sued, now, for lying about it. all posting here live in a system based on fossil fuels, which you seem to think is the only way to obtain energy. you're wrong.
I say its all due to a few oil company associates from the 1970s/80s, absolutely no connection with the Asian population explosion from the 1950s.
All posting here blameless as nobody uses fossil to fuel their ever increasing consumer lifestyles.
Population is a concern in terms of resources - food, water and building materials for example. But in terms of this forum, extra people doesn't necessarily mean extra co2 emissions. If more and more renewable power is used then emissions could go down as population increases.
As for the consumer lifestyle, it is not sacred is it? Or course we all need certain items but just buying ever greater quantities of useless stuff (mostly packaged in plastic) isn't the only way to live.
If you are arguing we should keep birth rates down and buy less (useless) stuff then we might be in agreement. But it is western lifestyles rather than Asian population which has driven co2 emissions.
There is no reason that modern economies cannot absorb the shift to renewables without much pain. It may be even easier for some developing economies, as renewable energy has become an economical addition rather than a replacement, eg as a source of electricity for the devices associated with the modern world. [There is a similar pattern with telephony, where there are now regions with no landlines where most people have mobile phones].
Energy storage has to become a major industry, IMO. Which technologies will win is not clear, but it is this which will make global sustainability and high standards of living possible. The only alternative (or a useful complement) is to have such huge, diverse grids that most variations in supply-demand matching can be absorbed. It is never the case that the sun is not shining and no wind is blowing anywhere (perhaps the nearest is during a winter night, when the main need is heat, which can certainly be stored quite efficiently from the day (the reverse of usual storage heaters, taking advantage of cheap electricity at night). High insulation standards also make heating requirements minimal in most climates.
Curious how alarmists firmly believe in agw, yet become equally alarmed at the notion many more of the a population within agw is an issue.
And re per capita emissions China already above UK.
China currently building coal fired plants across many Asian countries, not much choice really if wishing to satisfy consumer demand of increasing populations.
your first point is incoherent. if you are trying to argue that people can't and don't recognize that both are problems, you are wrong. if you are trying to argue that the main problem is overpopulation in the third world, you are also wrong. per capita doubt china is above the uk, and it is also cutting back on coal in the future.
87's whole worldview is incoherent. He thinks a little bit of warming will do us good (or no harm anyway) but is blithely oblivious to the fact that thousands of people died in heatwaves in Russia in 2017 (not usually thought of as a hot place). Heatwaves will become more common due to AGW.
For someone who supposedly accepts the science he has an odd way of responding to the facts.
The point of alarmists firmly believing in agw, and also firmly insisting more bodies / increased populations do not have any impact on agw.
Population growth is greatest from warmer countries, or the old fashioned term third world as pretzel mentions.
Your final two remarks pretzel are in error.
What makes you think I believe population has no role in AGW. Read my posts again - I have never said that.