Climate Change thread

[Annie Bynnol]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

No, you are wrong, scientific theory is exactly what I said, the best explanation that fits the available evidence, and it often changes as we learn more.

  You have a long way to go in understanding what a Scientific Theory is. You seem to be stuck at understanding the difference between Respiration and Photosynthesis. I think you may be confusing what scientists mean by Scientific Theory with an individual or a teams ideas, proposal or a 'theory' in common usage and in the media.

  The Laws of Thermodynamics, The Laws of Gravity and Motion, Chaos Theory, Mathematics and Statistics are perfectly adequate tools for looking at systems at this scale( between Atoms and Solar System).  Not only have they been repeatedly tested and challenged through prediction and exceptions have stood and been able to explain new observations. When Chaos Theory(initiated by weather people) caused 'chaos' in the scientific and mathematical world, it was understood using the relevant Scientific Theories and tested and able to mathematically describe all kinds of natural and human systems with more accuracy.  

   When the media or commentators ascribe some work as a 'theory' they are really not being accurate.

 

 

   

 

 

 

[Chekhov]

10 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

Right clever lad  or any of your clever mates   -    show me the post where I said       you shouldn't have cars

                                                                                                          show me the post where I said       you shouldn't have a warm house

                                                                                                          show me the post where I said         that I can decide what you deserve to have

 

You have lost the argument so you are just making things up as you go along.

I cannot be bothered to trawl through all your posts, but if you want to get our CO2 emissions down to zero it is blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain that anything that uses significant energy will be massively taxed to limit it. 

It might even be rationed or even banned altogether.

And all that without anyone voting for it.

 

I note you did not attempt to deny that you want to stop people flying.

Can't see that being very popular.

Not that it matters because you have already stated you don't think we should ever be asking people what they want.

[Chekhov]

8 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

  You have a long way to go in understanding what a Scientific Theory is. You seem to be stuck at understanding the difference between Respiration and Photosynthesis.

Why are you sidetracking this into some long discussion about a possible typo ?

Typical tactic when one is losing a debate.

I am fully aware of the difference between respiration and photosynthesis.

 

Photo synthesis occurs in a plant whenever the sun shines and it has access to water and CO2. It converts them both into oxygen and sugars (food).

 

Plants also respire, when they convert that food into growth basically, and it does that all the time, thus, at night, it will actually be using up more  oxygen than it produces and emitting CO2 at the same time,

 

However, over all, it will use up far more CO2 than it ever emits, and it will also emit more Oxygen that in uses.

 

And it is you who seems to lack knowledge about what scientific theory is (the clue is in the word "theory").

Edited June 8, 2023 by Chekhov

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I cannot be bothered to trawl through all your posts, but if you want to get our CO2 emissions down to zero it is blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain that anything that uses significant energy will be massively taxed to limit it. 

It might even be rationed or even banned altogether.

And all that without anyone voting for it.

 

I note you did not attempt to deny that you want to stop people flying.

Can't see that being very popular.

Not that it matters because you have already stated you don't think we should ever be asking people what they want.

No,   don't bother looking for those posts because they don't exist.   You made it up in your anger.

I  agree that taxation may well be used to cut back on energy use   -   that's pretty obvious to anyone.

Rationing and banning may take place too,  I agree.

               It seems you are getting the message at last.   It doesn't need a vote as you have already voted them in and they did say that they would take measures  to stop Climate Change.

There will be another general election next year so you will have chance to vote again but,  all parties are agreed on net zero so it won't make much difference.

It matters not whether I want to stop people flying.   I am not in government and no one does what I want.   

I HAVE NOT SAID THAT I WANT TO STOP PEOPLE FLYING,  I just think that they should,   and  I am entitled,  like you,  to my own personal opinion.

Doesn't matter to me whether it's popular or not if it saves the planet.

MY BOLD  -  You are doing it again   -   I have NOT said that at all.   If you think I have, then find my post.

No,   it doesn't matter because,  as I have said before,   I personally,  am not interested in what you,  or people like you ,  want.        Also,  what I think is not important and doesn't affect you.

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by Organgrinder

[harvey19]

Someone will find something else that is causing damage soon and so it will go on and on and on.

[Chekhov]

3 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

>>Chekhov said:
I cannot be bothered to trawl through all your posts, but if you want to get our CO2 emissions down to zero it is blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain that anything that uses significant energy will be massively taxed to limit it. 

It might even be rationed or even banned altogether.

And all that without anyone voting for it.<<

 

No,   don't bother looking for those posts [where I said  you shouldn't have cars or  you shouldn't have a warm house] because they don't exist.   You made it up in your anger.

I  agree that taxation may well be used to cut back on energy use   -   that's pretty obvious to anyone.
Rationing and banning may take place too,  I agree.

You have just contradicted yourself........

 

3 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

Doesn't matter to me whether it's popular or not if it saves the planet.

Err, that's an undemocratic position to take.

 

3 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

It doesn't need a vote as you have already voted them in and they did say that they would take measures  to stop Climate Change.

There will be another general election next year so you will have chance to vote again but,  all parties are agreed on net zero so it won't make much difference.

Nobody has voted for it as you know full well, but in any case the significant phrase is this one :

 

all parties are agreed on net zero so it won't make much difference =  totally undemocratic.

Edited June 8, 2023 by Chekhov

[Anna B]

The solutions are out there. They're reasonable and doable, no doubt about that.

What is lacking is the money to pay for them.

I would argue that we can't afford not to. 

 

Blackrock and Vanguard are said to be worth £9 Trillion. 

This is said to be more than the economies of all but 2 countries in the world; China and the USA.

Other major companies like Amazon are also worth a mint, thanks to major tax avoidance.

 

Get the big companies to pay their tax, (call it a worldwide corporation environment tax if you like,) and the money would be there to do what's required.

They are massive polluters, and don't care what corners they cut especially in the ruthless race for greater profits, (forget the 'greenwashing' hype/propaganda,) so why not?

By governments working together there would be nowhere to hide.  

- Instead of clobbering the little man all the time.  

Edited June 8, 2023 by Anna B

[altus]

25 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

You have just contradicted yourself........

 

Err, that's an undemocratic position to take.

 

Nobody has voted for it as you know full well, but in any case the significant phrase is this one :

 

all parties are agreed on net zero so it won't make much difference =  totally undemocratic.

No political parties are obliged to stand on a platform that you wish them to and it's not undemocratic for them to not do so. (None of them support legalisation of adults having sex with minors either but nobody's going to claim that's "totally undemocratic".)

 

If you feel strongly enough about it, start your own political party, stand yourself and persuade like-minded individuals to join you. You don't need to though, Organgrinder is wrong about all parties agreeing on net zero. UKIP 2.0 (or 3.7 or whatever version they are now up to) disagree with the other parties on net zero and might better align with your views on this issue. You can vote for them.

[Tyke02]

29 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Blackrock and Vanguard are said to be worth £9 Trillion. 

This is said to be more than the economies of all but 2 countries in the world; China and the USA.

I think you will find that those figures are "Assets under management", i.e. the value of the shares that belong to their customer base. In the last quarter Blackrock had revenues of $4bn, with about a quarter of that being profit.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

You have just contradicted yourself........

 

Err, that's an undemocratic position to take.

 

Nobody has voted for it as you know full well, but in any case the significant phrase is this one :

 

all parties are agreed on net zero so it won't make much difference =  totally undemocratic.

Either look for the posts in question   OR don't look for them    -   it doesn't matter to me, because they don't exist as you made it up.

 

Democratic governments sometimes do unpopular things,  as I thought you had already discovered with Covid     -     I am not a government and I rule nobody so I can be as undemocratic and unpopular as I like. 

 

How did we finish up with this government at the last election if nobody voted for it.?            Whether anybody voted for NET ZERO,  doesn't matter because the democratic government did, and that's it.

 

Yes,   that phrase is absolutely correct.   if you think that's undemocratic then you go and tell all the political parties and see whether you could get them to change their minds you silly man.

Ever heard of  King Canute?      -      He was a bit like you