butlers Posted July 9, 2023 Share Posted July 9, 2023 Course cherry picking 1998. The last 6 decades have all been progressively warmer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trastrick Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 (edited) 16 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said: Your own interpretations of the same data sources in the past really were miles off-so perhaps you have learnt that your beliefs are not inline with three year NSIDC interpretations. Here is just one example from the Greta Thunberg thread post 47 "Lol I posted the entire NOAA Satellite record of 42 years. I merely pointed out that today's warming anomaly of 0.37 degrees is actually lower than it was in 1998/99. ... And (another thing) the Gabfest climate charletons wont tell you dupes, is that the "Antarctic actually contains 90% of the Earth's total ice volume and 70 percent of its fresh water". So gains there are significant. Now this is the only reliable scientific data (actual satellite observations) available today. What they indicate, is that "catastrophic climate change is the greatest threat to mankind", as spouted by the political power brokers and their dupes, the chicken littles, is your real rubbish. They've been "crying wolf" for 20 years or more, and folks are beginning to tune them out. Long live science!" Maybe it is time for you to consider that not only is "... the latest satellite data from NASA, NOAA and NSIDC. The only Official scientific experts we have!(sic)" accurate, but so is their analysis. Lol I'm happy to stand by my opinions you repost above. We have the reliable and consistent observed data over the last 44 years, thanks to satellite technology. The "analysis" of what it means for the future of Planet Earth, is more speculative. There is a parallel to that other Great Threat to Humankind, the COVID 10 Pandemic. Is the slight warming seen, "catastrophic" as some politicians, and the MSM state with certainty? If "catastrophic", is it an "imminent", "existential" threat? Is it 5 years away? 10 years away? 50 years away? These are valid questions to ask the scientists. Can the price tag (follow the money) of up to $170,000,000,000.00 in mitigation, reparations, and transfers to the Third World change the Earth's temperature to arbitrary "normal" by the "end of the century"? The West is already living on borrowed money (see unsustainable National Debts) so where would this money come from? The answer given, is that it will come from "fundamental change in the way the World's economies work (see the end of Capitalism). These are valid questions for Economists. Can the West implement such World wide changes, without the vast majority of the World's populations in Russia, China, Asia, Africa Middle East, and South America agreeing to this green new deal? These are valid questions for the Politicians. Has the global warming issue become so politicised that there are the two usual belligerents, Left and Right with opposing views on the matter? Will the populations agree to the severe mandates, restrictions and inevitable rationing that such "fundamental changes in all aspects of their lives will require? Will the major Military Powers reduce their weapon arsenals to contain only green renewable energy to defend their National Security? These are valid questions for the voter. Until these questions are answered, or even asked, I will remain a skeptic. But as usual, it's only my humble opinion. Vote wisely! Edited July 10, 2023 by trastrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie Bynnol Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 27 minutes ago, trastrick said: Lol I'm happy to stand by my opinions you repost above. We have the reliable and consistent observed data over the last 44 years, thanks to satellite technology. The "analysis" of what it means for the future of Planet Earth, is more speculative. There is a parallel to that other Great Threat to Humankind, the COVID 10 Pandemic. Is the slight warming seen, "catastrophic" as some politicians, and the MSM state with certainty? If "catastrophic", is it an "imminent", "existential" threat? Is it 5 years away? 10 years away? 50 years away? These are valid questions to ask the scientists. Can the price tag (follow the money) of up to $170,000,000,000.00 in mitigation, reparations, and transfers to the Third World change the Earth's temperature to arbitrary "normal" by the "end of the century"? The West is already living on borrowed money (see unsustainable National Debts) so where would this money come from? The answer given, is that it will come from "fundamental change in the way the World's economies work (see the end of Capitalism). These are valid questions for Economists. Can the West implement such World wide changes, without the vast majority of the World's populations in Russia, China, Asia, Africa Middle East, and South America agreeing to this green new deal? These are valid questions for the Politicians. Has the global warming issue become so politicised that there are the two usual belligerents, Left and Right with opposing views on the matter? Will the populations agree to the severe mandates, restrictions and inevitable rationing that such "fundamental changes in all aspects of their lives will require? Will the major Military Powers reduce their weapon arsenals to contain only green renewable energy to defend their National Security? These are valid questions for the voter. Until these questions are answered, or even asked, I will remain a skeptic. But as usual, it's only my humble opinion. Vote wisely! It is good to see that at least a bit of the science is being accepted even if you consider the the models generated "speculative". The next stage is to focus on managing change rather than 'catastrophize' which you and the 'greens' spend too much time doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trastrick Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said: It is good to see that at least a bit of the science is being accepted even if you consider the the models generated "speculative". The next stage is to focus on managing change rather than 'catastrophize' which you and the 'greens' spend too much time doing. I accept the best scientific data we have. It's ALL we have! (at the moment) But here it is called "bumph" by some semi-illiterates! You like many others are too focusing on "managing the change". There's plenty of assorted authoritarians waiting in the wings to do just that, as we speak! The line forms to the Left, as usual Follow the money! Why wait for all that Cost Benefit Analysis (see above) "bumph"? WE MUST ACT NOW, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE! in the best tradition of Madison Avenue corporate shill messaging! THE END IS NIGH! GIVE UP YOUR WORLDLY GOODS, AND YE SHALL BE SAVED! In the best tradition of charlatan evangelists from time immemorial! Ah. well! The good news is that in a democratic society, the voters will ultimately decide! Edited July 10, 2023 by trastrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chekhov Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 Some of us have always said that public support for "nett zero" at any cost was minimal, or would be once people realised what they were being asked to sacrifice..... : Poll finds just 1 in 4 back the government's timetable for moving to electric vehicles Put brakes on drive to ban petrol and diesel cars by 2030, MPs and industry leaders tell ministers | Daily Mail Online Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2023 Share Posted July 10, 2023 Hi Chekhov. I'm not quoting that load of bumph again but the simple answer is, as I've said before. you do what you please and let any kids / grandkids etc, pay the price for you later. You are just selfish and uncaring but, you do have the right to be who you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chekhov Posted July 13, 2023 Share Posted July 13, 2023 (edited) In the first 3 months of this year China's CO2 output increased by more than the UK's total output ! China emissions exceed all developed nations combined https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-57018837 The UK's greenhouse gas emissions are just over 1% of the world's total and dropping all the time, even without all the extreme Nett Zero measures they are trying to bring in. So, all this we are doing - incl banning petrol and diesel cars (i.e. cheap cars...) - is not only immensely harmful to our economy and people's freedoms, it is also almost pointless ! It is so disproportionate that is is almost virtue signalling.... Now, when was that last a major issue ? Doing draconian stuff not because it made much difference, certainly not enough to be worth the trouble, but because we must show we're bothered ? Covid perhaps ? Edited July 13, 2023 by Chekhov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Grey Posted July 13, 2023 Share Posted July 13, 2023 2 minutes ago, Chekhov said: In the first 3 months of this year China's CO2 output increased by more than the UK's total output ! China emissions exceed all developed nations combined https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-57018837 The UK's greenhouse gas emissions are just over 1% of the world's total and dropping all the time, even without all the extreme Nett Zero measures they are trying to bring in. So, all this we are doing - incl banning petrol and diesel cars (i.e. cheap cars...) - is not only immensely harmful to our economy and people's freedoms, it is also almost pointless. I saw an interview with a climate numpty the other day who said it was ok that China had high CO2 because they had 1.5 billion people If we increase our population we can pollute all we want Then he said that it's because we buy all their cheap stuff China's stuff is cheap because they have cheap energy Why do they have cheap energy....because the havent signed up to ridiculous targets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 13, 2023 Share Posted July 13, 2023 (edited) Don't be so gleeful about that Chekhov. You should be hoping for it to go the other way. That will increase the climate change result and make it even more certain that the crack down will be soon and it will be fearful for such as you. Full of climate change results when they discuss recent weather on the TV with panic setting in all over the place. By the way, China's high levels are partly because we are buying stuff from them instead of making it ourselves. Their stuff is cheap because they use a lot of slave labour. Doesn't change the end result which is that, all these polluters are going to cost you your holidays and your petrol / diesel jalopy. Edited July 13, 2023 by Organgrinder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chekhov Posted July 14, 2023 Share Posted July 14, 2023 On 13/07/2023 at 14:58, Organgrinder said: Their stuff is cheap because they use a lot of slave labour. I am no fan of China, as the Taiwan flag on my profile pic proves, but OI doubt very much is more than a tiny percentage of products manufactured n China are made using slave labour. On 13/07/2023 at 14:58, Organgrinder said: Doesn't change the end result which is that, all these polluters are going to cost you your holidays and your petrol / diesel jalopy. And all without anyone voting for it...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now