"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

dense wrote: »

Its the usual rote, waffle answer which amounts to tax, tax, and more tax, which is typical of these lefty non-earning environmentalists who then can't or won't articulate to those who will be paying these taxes why these taxes are being levied, and who exactly is going to benefit from them.


Whatever your real agenda is, I'm very suspicious of it.

What about your new world order conspiracy?.
How much time have people wasted on you on this thread. Baffling

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No, as mentioned it's pretty much the same as any other denialist thread. One person with an extreme fringe belief going around in circles with endless fallacies, pseudo-science and faulty logic. Armed with the illusion they are somehow "questioning" something that no one else is.

It's not a "debate", its effectively one person challenging everyone else to convince them of something they will never be convinced of

It's one of the "perks" of internet debate forums

If you want to debate, debate, at the moment the only thing that's happening here is a bit of drive by heckling from the sidelines from those who aren't quite sure what they're talking about.



Why I say they're not sure what they're talking about is because whenever they're asked to expand on their understanding outside of the usual worn clichés, it all dries up.



Whether its about enquiring about their left leaning political tendencies or their carbon footprint, when it comes to the crunch they suddenly don't actually want to debate their chosen topic.


That tells me they don't want to debate but do want to promote an agenda.



You've made about 20 posts in this thread yourself and most of them were trying to convince yourself about 97% of scientists.


Is there anything about "climate change" you do want to debate?

gargargar wrote: »

The existing model was to farm, mine, and plunder our resources with little regard to the environment on what future generations will inherit. She is hoping that we can raise people's income while still respecting our environment. This will only happen with richer countries helping the poorer.

Rich countries do help poor countries!

Ireland currently provides almost €1bn a year in help.

We've also agreed to an additional twenty two billion euro program which the UN says will help Ireland transition towards being a 95% carbon free economy in a couple of decades.....

The UN says it demonstrates climate leadership, whilst the environmentalists are fuming and say we're second from the bottom regarding transitioning to a carbon free economy and face fines of another half a billion a year for failing to meet targets.

This will all have to be paid for from your current 40% tax take and will impact on already stretched public services such as health, education and welfare, unless our current taxes are raised to fund it.

https://unfccc.int/news/ireland-demonstrates-climate-leadership-with-eu22-billion-investment-plan

gargargar wrote: »

I pay perhaps 40% of my income on various taxes. I am happy that some amount of that money is spent on environmental projects including helping poor nations.

I'm sure any of us who are taxpayers are quite content that a portion of our taxes go towards environmental projects.

But the problem is that the current contributions are simply not enough for the local experts on climate change who attended the Citizens Assembly on Climate Change.

They're now calling for more and more taxes, increasing year on year.

https://www.citizensassembly.ie/en/How-the-State-can-make-Ireland-a-leader-in-tackling-climate-change/

Nor do I suspect that the UN believes that current taxation measures can deliver the essential and radical economic global transformation it envisages.


And they are all quite correct.

Punitive taxes will have to be imposed to create a real and tangible transfer of wealth to poorer countries in line with the transformation that is being called for.


And this will all happen, because we are going to see mass demonstrations on the streets by PAYE workers demanding that their taxes be raised in order to combat climate change and the political party which advocates the highest climate taxes will trump the rest.



Sorry, did I say PAYE workers?


I meant the usual band of layabouts who contribute nothing to society and latch on to various "causes".

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

This really is just like the old creationism thread all over again, although in dense's defence, with significantly more coherent English.

Creationism and the climate warming thing go hand in hand, see the Pope and Katherine Hayhoe's resumes.



https://www.guernicamag.com/gods-creation-is-running-a-fever/

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I'm not quite sure of the point you're making here?
Are you saying that, based on a sample size of one, all climate change scientists are creationists?
Or that no religious person could possibly believe in climate change?
Or that she is automatically wrong because of her religious views?

Maybe better asking whoever brought creationists into it?

I'm just saying the church of climate scientologists who want to power the planet by windmills rely on folk who'll swallow stones.

We debated elsewhere on boards about the EU vacuum cleaner regulations.

The EU was concerned that vacuums were using and wasting lot of energy.

The energy used by vacuum cleaners accounts for a significant part of total energy demand in the Union. The scope for reducing the energy consumption of vacuum cleaners is substantial.

https://www.google.ie/url?q=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do%3Furi%3DOJ:L:2013:192:0001:0023:EN:PDF&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwidseLUhIvdAhXHVsAKHdKQCFwQFggNMAE&usg=AOvVaw2W4yNYVws7wrLZ5Riokiut

As it turned out, I did the calculations and found that vacuum cleaners, not surprisingly are not using significant amounts of energy in the EU.


It was claimed ir would save up to 19tw hours of electricity a year.

Only thing is, the EU produces 310twh of electricity each year, so vacuum cleaners use sfa in the big scheme of things.

So imagine my horror at discovering the EU has around 250m cars which it hopes to have running on electricity in the next couple of decades.

Where exactly is all this additional electrical power going to come from if the EU is fretting about vacuum cleaners using too much electricity?


On top of that, the drive to produce autonomous vehicles will add another layer of energy consumption on top in order to make it all work.


https://www.wired.com/story/self-driving-cars-power-consumption-nvidia-chip/

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

4 star premium, dude!

Not so long ago (in climactic terms) the scientists were saying they could see no end to the global cooling that was being caused by the ever increasing C02 concentrations as recorded at the time by the Moana Lua observatory.








And that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere was going to push us headlong into a new ice age.


The current wheeze is that the scientists say that more C02 might make it get a bit warmer.



Or burn the earth to a cinder or something.



https://www.nytimes.com/1970/07/18/archives/us-and-soviet-press-studies-of-a-colder-arctic-us-and-soviet-press.html




https://www.nytimes.com/1978/01/05/archives/international-team-of-specialists-finds-no-end-in-sight-to-30year.html


http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Get Real wrote: »

The thing about electric cars is, there's no "additional" fuel needed to create the electricity needed to power them and drive them.

The equivalent of 18 nuclear power stations will be needed for the EU alone:

Until 2030, the demand of energy from the electrical vehicles will be limited and not influence in the electric system significantly. But, from 2030 awards, with the market shares going up, because of electric vehicles production, electricity demand will have a more significant impact on electrical systems in Europe.

To achieve that by 2050 80% of the vehicles are electric, a proportion between 3% and 25% of the total electricity demand will be required in EU-28, depending on the number of electric vehicles deployed in each country. On average, for the EU-28, the proportion of the total demand for electricity in 2050 will be 9.5%.



This means that, an additional electrical capacity of 150 GW will be necessary for charging electric cars. This would be equivalent to 18 large nuclear stations or combined cycles and would represent 15% of the current electric system throughout the EU.

https://www.magnuscmd.com/electric-vehicles-and-the-energy-sector/


Cribbing about vacuum cleaners using too much electricity whilst advocating electric cars seems ironic, to me at least.

In Ireland we're going to have our hands full with the data centres alone:


https://amp.independent.ie/business/irish/revealed-data-centres-to-swallow-75pc-of-growth-in-irish-power-demand-36226058.html

Get Real wrote: »

A petrol engine loses approx 70percent of its energy in heat alone.

There must be a lot of unprecedented made heat going into the atmosphere then with over a billion cars in the world.


Didn't an ice cream van raise the temperature in Scotland lately?


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-44725830

On Thursday 28 June, a temperature of 33.2C degrees was measured at Strathclyde Park in Motherwell.

The Met Office now says a stationary vehicle with its engine running was parked too close to the equipment.