ChatterBank3 mins ago
Climate Change Scam
29 Answers
Does anyone really believe that building windmills and driving Teslas is going to cool the planet?
Isn't this really all about money? Hundreds and hundreds of billions of government handouts gathered from taxpayers, - the likes of you.
Could it ever have bee more blatantly transparent than at this year’s sham COP 27 climate conference in Egypt, which was attended by more than 20,000 delegates and activists from more than 100 countries (except the greatest polluters of all; India & China). The only agreement that the delegates could reach was a hollow “commitment” from the rich Western nations to give “reparation” money to the poor nations of the world.
Would you be happy to do this? There seems to be at least one failed idiot politician in England; David Milliband, who thinks it's a wonderful idea.
Isn't this really all about money? Hundreds and hundreds of billions of government handouts gathered from taxpayers, - the likes of you.
Could it ever have bee more blatantly transparent than at this year’s sham COP 27 climate conference in Egypt, which was attended by more than 20,000 delegates and activists from more than 100 countries (except the greatest polluters of all; India & China). The only agreement that the delegates could reach was a hollow “commitment” from the rich Western nations to give “reparation” money to the poor nations of the world.
Would you be happy to do this? There seems to be at least one failed idiot politician in England; David Milliband, who thinks it's a wonderful idea.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Groan, another one.
At the moment the aim is to stop warming the planet, not to cool it down. To that end, reducing greenhouse gas will do that, it is basic chemistry and has been known for 200 years.
In the UK, electricity from renewable sources generated more electricity than from fossil fuels at virtually no emissions.
In 2017, extreme weather events globally cost $470Billion. So doing nothing is not the cheaper option.
At the moment the aim is to stop warming the planet, not to cool it down. To that end, reducing greenhouse gas will do that, it is basic chemistry and has been known for 200 years.
In the UK, electricity from renewable sources generated more electricity than from fossil fuels at virtually no emissions.
In 2017, extreme weather events globally cost $470Billion. So doing nothing is not the cheaper option.
// it is basic chemistry and has been known for 200 years// Garbage, its based on modelling, and we all know about that.
//In the UK, electricity from renewable sources generated more electricity than from fossil fuels at virtually no emissions.//
Well, only if you include Nuclear, plus I would argue against the no emissions as you have ignored building costs.
//In 2017, extreme weather events globally cost $470Billion. So doing nothing is not the cheaper option.//
That is an utter rubbish argument, as usual you pick one year and cherry pick some figures to suit your agenda.
//In the UK, electricity from renewable sources generated more electricity than from fossil fuels at virtually no emissions.//
Well, only if you include Nuclear, plus I would argue against the no emissions as you have ignored building costs.
//In 2017, extreme weather events globally cost $470Billion. So doing nothing is not the cheaper option.//
That is an utter rubbish argument, as usual you pick one year and cherry pick some figures to suit your agenda.
I think you've made a basic miss-interpretation of the aims of COP27, Khandro, which is a bad basis on which to argue any point you may be trying to make. The aim is not to cool but to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
I note your scepticism and I'm sure some of it is justified but 'we' cannot simply do nothing.
Meanwhile Quatar bid for the Olymics and say (and I paraphrase) 'oh, don't worry about it being hot, we'll air-condition the streets'.
I note your scepticism and I'm sure some of it is justified but 'we' cannot simply do nothing.
Meanwhile Quatar bid for the Olymics and say (and I paraphrase) 'oh, don't worry about it being hot, we'll air-condition the streets'.
//I read somewhere that far more birds die from flying into windows than die from flying into windmill blades. //
A quick internet search shows that to be a very odd claim.
And are you seriously trying to tie in turkeys bred to eat is in the same category as a wild bird being killed by a windmill?
I know I am not a 'decent' person but come on.
A quick internet search shows that to be a very odd claim.
And are you seriously trying to tie in turkeys bred to eat is in the same category as a wild bird being killed by a windmill?
I know I am not a 'decent' person but come on.
// That is an utter rubbish argument, as usual you pick one year and cherry pick some figures to suit your agenda. //
No. I pick the most recent year I can find figures for.
// extreme weather damages totaled approximately $2.5 trillion around the globe between 2011 and 2020, up almost 50 percent from the 2001-2010 figure. //
You think we should ignore the $2.5 Trillion cost, and do nothing ?
No. I pick the most recent year I can find figures for.
// extreme weather damages totaled approximately $2.5 trillion around the globe between 2011 and 2020, up almost 50 percent from the 2001-2010 figure. //
You think we should ignore the $2.5 Trillion cost, and do nothing ?
youngmafbog
// it is basic chemistry and has been known for 200 years // Garbage, its based on modelling, and we all know about that.
Nope. Demonstrable in the laboratory in 1824.
// The existence of the greenhouse effect, while not named as such, was proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence were further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838. In 1856 Eunice Newton Foote demonstrated that the warming effect of the sun is greater for air with water vapour than for dry air, and the effect is even greater with carbon dioxide. She concluded that "An atmosphere of that gas would give to our earth a high temperature. //
// it is basic chemistry and has been known for 200 years // Garbage, its based on modelling, and we all know about that.
Nope. Demonstrable in the laboratory in 1824.
// The existence of the greenhouse effect, while not named as such, was proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence were further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838. In 1856 Eunice Newton Foote demonstrated that the warming effect of the sun is greater for air with water vapour than for dry air, and the effect is even greater with carbon dioxide. She concluded that "An atmosphere of that gas would give to our earth a high temperature. //
//…it is basic chemistry//
More Physics, I would suggest, but I won’t quibble.
//In the UK, electricity from renewable sources generated more electricity than from fossil fuels at virtually no emissions.//
//Well, only if you include Nuclear,…//
And if you also include burning wood – the greatest example of “creative accounting” in this whole sorry nonsense.
As I write fossil fuels (gas and coal) are providing more than 53% of the demand on the grid. In my view the 6% contributed by so-called “biomass” (i.e. wood, most of it from freshly felled trees transported over 4,000 miles to be burnt in Yorkshire) can be added to that as that fuel cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be termed “renewable”).
It will be a very long time indeed before the UK can end its reliance on fossil fuels and the crazy “Net Zero” strategy (with or without creative accounting) needs to be ditched immediately.
More Physics, I would suggest, but I won’t quibble.
//In the UK, electricity from renewable sources generated more electricity than from fossil fuels at virtually no emissions.//
//Well, only if you include Nuclear,…//
And if you also include burning wood – the greatest example of “creative accounting” in this whole sorry nonsense.
As I write fossil fuels (gas and coal) are providing more than 53% of the demand on the grid. In my view the 6% contributed by so-called “biomass” (i.e. wood, most of it from freshly felled trees transported over 4,000 miles to be burnt in Yorkshire) can be added to that as that fuel cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be termed “renewable”).
It will be a very long time indeed before the UK can end its reliance on fossil fuels and the crazy “Net Zero” strategy (with or without creative accounting) needs to be ditched immediately.
If a total "ice thaw" and possible flooding occurred, it would not be the "End of Mankind" as we know it Jim. It would probably cause less disruption to the majority of the World population and cost less to deal with than the Eco loons are causing and costing us right now, and into the mad foreseeable future. However, if as many believe, we are actually heading towards one of the regular cooling periods on Earth, and the possibility of once again being an ice laden World we will have gambled on the false statistics of a vocal lobby who see our concern for the future as a money making, and career step, full of reward ... for themselves. The sensible balanced argument should be that instead of betting our existence on the hysterical belief that a few degrees of warming and the effect of flooding is going to doom us we should take heed that it's far more difficult to survive reduced temperature, carbon dioxide and a dwindling food supply. We are being coerced into dedicating all of our resources into preventing carbon dioxide release whereby we will have frittered away the very resources we required to tackle the possible cooling problem. Frozen up wind turbines, hydroelectric facilities and snow covered solar cells are going to be useless if that's what happens. If it turns out that we are in a severe cooling phase, then we won't have the power we need to produce the things we need to extract fossil fuels from the ground or build the power plants that could utilise that fuel. There will be no way to charge millions of electric vehicles which will all be useless. Greenhouses and hydroponics require heating if we are to grow food. Food needs transport for distribution and homes need heat in a perpetual cold spell.
