Why Are Extremist Environmentalists So Inconsistent ?

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Jack Grey said:

For every scientist that says the world will explode into a huge fireball within the next 5 years there will be a scientist who says that it won't

 

So far history and the facts are on the side of the scientists who believe that the world isn't ending and that climate change has been happening for billions of years.

 

In fact the air in the UK is cleaner now then it has been during anytime in the last 150 years

 

However, there's are people who seem to love a good old doomsday scenario so let them lay awake at night worrying about something that won't happen. 

 

Because I never think about climate change.....I'll recycle and pay green taxes so that's me doing my bit  

You are just talking stupid and making things up,   There is not a single scientist on the planet who says the world will explode into a huge fireball within any number of years..

Therefore,  there will be no scientist who argues with them.    YOU HAVE ONLY COME ON HERE TO ACT DAFT INSTEAD OF SERIOUSLY DEBATE BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU ARE WRONG.

COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME TRYING TO DEBATE WITH ANY IDIOT WHO MAKES THINGS UP,  SO HE CAN ARGUE ABOUT THEM.       GOODBYE MR BRAIN DEAD.

Then they say "you are rude and insult us"   

 

Edited September 26, 2023 by Organgrinder

[leviathan13]

49 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

If you honestly don't know,  there's not much point anyone trying to tell you,   because you clearly don't put either any thought,  or any research into it.

It's now changing  8 times faster than it should do,  and we can actually see it happening,  and we know clearly,  the reasons why.

We also know that our seas and rivers are badly polluted because we can see it and examine it and find all the dead creatures it kills.

Nature hasn't filled the seas and rivers with plastics and sewage,   and nature has only created algae,  from the chemicals mankind has dumped.

There have always been forest fires and floods but never on the scale we get them now.

Trying to find a    "get out of jail free"    card will never solve our climate problems.      We must take responsibility and tackle it,  if only to slow it down.

 

 

Agreed that we need to stop the amount of plastic and crap going into our oceans and waterways.

 

But we don't 100% know what the previous 'scales' were - 'since records began' is one of the most comical phrases as there are 65 billion years of history before records were able to start being kept.

 

And it's changing 8x faster than it 'should do' - says who??? Who put an arbitrary timescale on how quickly things 'should' be happening?

 

The planet will be fine long after humans have gone - the planet doesn't need 'saving'.

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, leviathan13 said:

Agreed that we need to stop the amount of plastic and crap going into our oceans and waterways.

 

But we don't 100% know what the previous 'scales' were - 'since records began' is one of the most comical phrases as there are 65 billion years of history before records were able to start being kept.

 

And it's changing 8x faster than it 'should do' - says who??? Who put an arbitrary timescale on how quickly things 'should' be happening?

 

The planet will be fine long after humans have gone - the planet doesn't need 'saving'.

 

Agreed that we need to cut pollution in rivers and seas   -   but we are not doing that  and only the environmentalists (who you scoff at ) really care.

We do know from doing deep drilling  and taking cores,  especially in the polar icecaps,  exactly what was happening millions of years ago and most of it, we know why.

The scientists say.   Scientists who have years of training and experience in their fields,  and don't have to come on here and ask questions which they should already know.

They can tell from the cores, containing such things as fossilised animals, fish, shells,  trees etc,  what was happening at any particular time.  They already know the timescale.

I have already said over and over that the planet will survive.  Nobody would call it   "Fine"  but it would eventually recover from the damage we have caused.

Maybe if you did more reading and watching serious programs instead of watching such as   football and I'm a celeb,  you would be far more knowledgeable and able to question scientists.

 

Edited September 26, 2023 by Organgrinder

[leviathan13]

24 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

 

Agreed that we need to cut pollution in rivers and seas   -   but we are not doing that  and only the environmentalists (who you scoff at ) really care.

We do know from doing deep drilling  and taking cores,  especially in the polar icecaps,  exactly what was happening millions of years ago and most of it, we know why.

The scientists say.   Scientists who have years of training and experience in their fields,  and don't have to come on here and ask questions which they should already know.

They can tell from the cores, containing such things as fossilised animals, fish, shells,  trees etc,  what was happening at any particular time.  They already know the timescale.

I have already said over and over that the planet will survive.  Nobody would call it   "Fine"  but it would eventually recover from the damage we have caused.

Maybe if you did more reading and watching serious programs instead of watching such as   football and I'm a celeb,  you would be far more knowledgeable and able to question scientists.

 

They know WHAT but the WHY is still just theory.

 

And, as always, the insults - i don't watch reality TV and do watch documentaries; it's just when i watch them i don't automatically believe everything from that one program. For example, all the green technology being built is having a major effect on nature, but a few rodents, birds and insects are collateral for ensuring we humans survive, it would seem.

 

Like with Covid - i did everything that was asked of me; had all my jabs and wore masks etc. However, i've since begun to question some of it based on newer science...

 

Science is constantly evolving, but i can't close my eyes to some of the 'conspiracies' around who is pushing the green/climate agenda. Speaking to a nuclear physicist, nuclear is the only way to go... but i'll get shouted down by many, despite that scientist being an expert, because it doesn't fit with the hive-mind agenda.

 

 

[alchresearch]

Ed Miliband, Labour's climate whinger, is best:
 

Ed Miliband slams Government over 'devastating' sudden closure of Hatfield Colliery after 99 years

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ed-miliband-slams-government-over-5978358

 

Miliband: Keep worker-owned colliery open

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/a-f6e9-miliband-keep-worker-owned-colliery-open-1

 

Yet:

 

Labour says it would stop Cumbria coalmine from opening
Ed Miliband vows party will seek to prevent ‘climate-destroying’ plan and if elected would deliver green jobs

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/08/labour-says-would-stop-cumbria-coalmine-opening-ed-miliband

[Mkapaka]

18 hours ago, The_DADDY said:

Environmental extremists are simply mental. They shout, they scream, they glue their faces to stuff (which is very funny btw) and they bang on about the "97% of scientists agree with them" gibberish. 

Then they go home in their diesel car to an uninsulated house and watch their big screen TV whilst tapping on their smart phone with Tarquin and Isabella playing on their tablets. etc etc.

Hypocritical doesn't even come close in my opinion. 

 

 

Edited September 26, 2023 by Mkapaka

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, leviathan13 said:

They know WHAT but the WHY is still just theory.

 

And, as always, the insults - i don't watch reality TV and do watch documentaries; it's just when i watch them i don't automatically believe everything from that one program. For example, all the green technology being built is having a major effect on nature, but a few rodents, birds and insects are collateral for ensuring we humans survive, it would seem.

 

Like with Covid - i did everything that was asked of me; had all my jabs and wore masks etc. However, i've since begun to question some of it based on newer science...

 

Science is constantly evolving, but i can't close my eyes to some of the 'conspiracies' around who is pushing the green/climate agenda. Speaking to a nuclear physicist, nuclear is the only way to go... but i'll get shouted down by many, despite that scientist being an expert, because it doesn't fit with the hive-mind agenda.

 

 

I'll start at the bottom.  As you've rightly said,  there are loads of conspiracy theorists around and loads of conspiracy websites.

If you are wise enough to get the majority of your info from British sources ( definitely not from american TV ),  then you should hear it more or less at it is.

A Nuclear physicist knows absolutely nothing about Climate Change and Global Warming.  he's brilliant at what he does but he doesn't do that.

The only people who know what they are talking about are Naturalists, Weather experts,  Climatologists,  Oceanographers and Paleontologists.

Almost all of the most respected leaders in each field are in general agreement regarding what happened in the past and in  predicting what will happen in the future. 

ALL the green technology IS NOT having a major effect on nature.  Some odd things which have been tried have proved problematic such as harnessing the sea.

This is not really a problem because there are many different ways of using the sea and you can avoid those problems.  If you want to worry about the sea,  look at the massive pollution we are causing to it.

There are few problems which are insurmountable but we are still only half heartedly trying to go green and doing much more talking about it rather than doing it.

There will always be conspiracies and nut cases but the people with the proper qualifications,   actually doing the work in these fields will tell you the truth.

 

 

[Chekhov]

3 hours ago, leviathan13 said:

Agreed that we need to stop the amount of plastic and crap going into our oceans and waterways.

We can all agree on that, but I remember reading an article on plastics ending up in oceans, and the amount that they reckon comes from the UkKis so infinitesimal (particularly compared to some of the African countries) it was almost not worth bothering with. And certainly not at any significant cost.

 

1 hour ago, alchresearch said:

Ed Miliband, Labour's climate whinger, is best:
 

Ed Miliband slams Government over 'devastating' sudden closure of Hatfield Colliery after 99 years

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ed-miliband-slams-government-over-5978358

 

Miliband: Keep worker-owned colliery open

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/a-f6e9-miliband-keep-worker-owned-colliery-open-1

 

Yet:

 

Labour says it would stop Cumbria coalmine from opening
Ed Miliband vows party will seek to prevent ‘climate-destroying’ plan and if elected would deliver green jobs

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/08/labour-says-would-stop-cumbria-coalmine-opening-ed-miliband

Then stopping that mine is a classic example of virtue signalling. All it would mean is the coal would have to be imported, at higher environmental cost....

It was similar story when the Welsh council closed down the last mine producing steam coal (much used on Heritage railways).

 

(03 May 2023) Last week an application to vary a planning condition to allow mining there until 31 March 2024 was rejected by Merthyr Tydfil Council’s planning committee.

The application sought an extension to the mineral extraction and plans for restoration, with coal extraction to stop by the end of March, 2024 and final restoration to be completed by 30 June, 2026 rather than the original date of 31 December 2024.

https://nation.cymru/news/ffos-y-fran-railway-association-warns-importing-coal-will-increase-pollution/

 

Extinction Rebellion protesters shooting themselves - and us - in the foot (toss***) :

Edited September 26, 2023 by Chekhov

[Jack Grey]

4 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

You are just talking stupid and making things up,   There is not a single scientist on the planet who says the world will explode into a huge fireball within any number of years..

Therefore,  there will be no scientist who argues with them.    YOU HAVE ONLY COME ON HERE TO ACT DAFT INSTEAD OF SERIOUSLY DEBATE BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU ARE WRONG.

COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME TRYING TO DEBATE WITH ANY IDIOT WHO MAKES THINGS UP,  SO HE CAN ARGUE ABOUT THEM.       GOODBYE MR BRAIN DEAD.

Then they say "you are rude and insult us"   

 

Don't engage with me then

 

You are exactly the person I described in my first comment

 

You think you're right so no one else can have an opinion.

 

A typical leftie who gets angry and starts throwing insults around because you think you're smarter than everyone else

 

Thanks for proving me right 👍

Edited September 26, 2023 by Jack Grey

[leviathan13]

52 minutes ago, Organgrinder said:

I'll start at the bottom.  As you've rightly said,  there are loads of conspiracy theorists around and loads of conspiracy websites.

If you are wise enough to get the majority of your info from British sources ( definitely not from american TV ),  then you should hear it more or less at it is.

A Nuclear physicist knows absolutely nothing about Climate Change and Global Warming.  he's brilliant at what he does but he doesn't do that.

The only people who know what they are talking about are Naturalists, Weather experts,  Climatologists,  Oceanographers and Paleontologists.

Almost all of the most respected leaders in each field are in general agreement regarding what happened in the past and in  predicting what will happen in the future. 

ALL the green technology IS NOT having a major effect on nature.  Some odd things which have been tried have proved problematic such as harnessing the sea.

This is not really a problem because there are many different ways of using the sea and you can avoid those problems.  If you want to worry about the sea,  look at the massive pollution we are causing to it.

There are few problems which are insurmountable but we are still only half heartedly trying to go green and doing much more talking about it rather than doing it.

There will always be conspiracies and nut cases but the people with the proper qualifications,   actually doing the work in these fields will tell you the truth.

 

 

So you're saying that an expert in that field doesn't know about the infrastructure/output/emissions etc. of a reactor/power plant??? And the impact it will have on the environment?

 

Just doing a quick search, I'm struggling to find any information on what happens to all the green tech such as solar panels and turbines when they become out of date and obsolete. How much of it can be recycled and what is the energy impact of that? Also, the numbers seem to suggest that a solar panels and turbines have a lifespan of around 25-30 years - a nuclear reactor will last upwards of 40 years, based on current tech. And it's not just about the sea - I've seen reports of the impact that turbines have had on birds, for example. And they're proposing solar farms which will remove acres of habitat.

 

As has been said, for every argument and theory, there's a counter one.

 

It's like with politicians being advised by the experts about the seas/oceans rising and then buying coastal properties.