FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Versions of climate change denial
Versions of climate change denial
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"for what it is worth i find in real life..i.e not online i know 3 or 4 ppl whos lifes revolve around nothing else but climate change but on the whole most ppl i know are more intrested where there going on holiday what new bit of rubbish there gona buy but dont need and generally worry about day to day life.easy to be right on in the twattersphere and facebook but to much like hardwork for most in real life.in a country of 60 odd million xr manage to get 20 to 30.000 excited" The cynic in me wonders how many of those school kids would have marched for climate change if the marches had been held on a Saturday or Sunday? If someone had said to me whilst at school you have maths, science and PE on Friday or you can come on a march and shout 'Fuck the PM' I would have been marching for any cause. If you'd asked me to do it on Saturday and miss playing football and I would have told you to sling your hook. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"for what it is worth i find in real life..i.e not online i know 3 or 4 ppl whos lifes revolve around nothing else but climate change but on the whole most ppl i know are more intrested where there going on holiday what new bit of rubbish there gona buy but dont need and generally worry about day to day life.easy to be right on in the twattersphere and facebook but to much like hardwork for most in real life.in a country of 60 odd million xr manage to get 20 to 30.000 excited" There is absolutely nothing here about anyone's life "revolving around climate change". That's a completely different discussion. My life does not "revolve around" not getting hit by a car or poisoning myself or not getting sick but I take sensible steps to avoid it. Which denial option that I laid out do you subscribe to or do you actually think that climate change is a serious issue that needs to be acted upon? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"for what it is worth i find in real life..i.e not online i know 3 or 4 ppl whos lifes revolve around nothing else but climate change but on the whole most ppl i know are more intrested where there going on holiday what new bit of rubbish there gona buy but dont need and generally worry about day to day life.easy to be right on in the twattersphere and facebook but to much like hardwork for most in real life.in a country of 60 odd million xr manage to get 20 to 30.000 excited The cynic in me wonders how many of those school kids would have marched for climate change if the marches had been held on a Saturday or Sunday? If someone had said to me whilst at school you have maths, science and PE on Friday or you can come on a march and shout 'Fuck the PM' I would have been marching for any cause. If you'd asked me to do it on Saturday and miss playing football and I would have told you to sling your hook." Again, I didn't ask anything that complicated. I even tried to provde all of the possible options. If you wish to make another point that is, of course, perfectly fine, but would you mind addressing the actual question too? Which denial option that I laid out do you subscribe to or do you actually think that climate change is a serious issue that needs to be acted upon? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"for what it is worth i find in real life..i.e not online i know 3 or 4 ppl whos lifes revolve around nothing else but climate change but on the whole most ppl i know are more intrested where there going on holiday what new bit of rubbish there gona buy but dont need and generally worry about day to day life.easy to be right on in the twattersphere and facebook but to much like hardwork for most in real life.in a country of 60 odd million xr manage to get 20 to 30.000 excited The cynic in me wonders how many of those school kids would have marched for climate change if the marches had been held on a Saturday or Sunday? If someone had said to me whilst at school you have maths, science and PE on Friday or you can come on a march and shout 'Fuck the PM' I would have been marching for any cause. If you'd asked me to do it on Saturday and miss playing football and I would have told you to sling your hook." thats not being cynicall thats being a realist  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"my veiw is since the age of 11 or 12 some expert or another every 10 or so years has said theres a whole in the sky we all gona fry or theres an ice age coming or we all gona drown because by 2020 the seas would have risen.every prediction so far has failed to materialise so why will this one be any different.ask me again in ten years then again we mite not be arond in ten years IFyour right " Just say option 1 then. Why so hard? 1. Climate change is not happening at all. The climate has not changed and is not changing. Nothing needs to be done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Came through Dover yesterday now have over 10k lorries a day carrying freight and food ...most diesel lorries ....how do you propose to move all this stuff without diesel lorries ....or will the gobby kid tell us how it is to be done ...the world is changing due to population...stop having so many kids would help ..." Why all the rambling abuse and change of topic? Why so hard to just answer directly? Option 7. 7. The climate is changing significantly due to the actions of humanity. It can be stopped or mitigated but it would cost too much. Nothing should be done except dealing with the consequences. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"so your choosing for me easy lol.listen these experts have been wrong with every prediction since i was a kid.wana save the planet then cull the human race except everytime mother nature trys to do that we poke our noses in and stop her but hey ho u wana save the human race not the planet" You complain but cannot actually answer a simple question on what you believe so yes, I have answered for you. You're welcome. You don't need to fill space on this thread any more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
1. Climate change is not happening at all. The climate has not changed and is not changing. Nothing needs to be done.
2. The climate is changing slightly but it is "natural". Humanity does not effect the climate in any way. Nothing needs to be done.
3. The climate is changing slightly but it is nearly all "natural" and humanity has barely any effect. Nothing needs to be done.
4. The climate is changing significantly but it is "natural". Humanity does not effect the climate in any way. Nothing needs to be done except dealing with the consequences.
5. The climate is changing significantly but it is nearly all "natural" and humanity has barely any effect. Nothing needs to be done except dealing with the consequences.
6. The climate is changing significantly due to the actions of humanity. It cannot be stopped or mitigated. Nothing can be done except dealing with the consequences.
7. The climate is changing significantly due to the actions of humanity. It can be stopped or mitigated but it would cost too much. Nothing should be done except dealing with the consequences.
8. The climate is changing significantly due to the actions of humanity. It can be stopped or mitigated but it it is someone else's fault. Someone else should fix it.
9. The climate is changing significantly due to the actions of humanity. It can be stopped or mitigated but I just don't care. Nothing should be done except dealing with the consequences for me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not sure if this is covered if so what nr? Yes climate change is natural but humans are contributing to it since the industrial revolution, we should however be more worried with polution, remember that we are not killing the planet only ourselfs it will return to its normal self after a few cycles." We are contributing to it slightly* | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not sure if this is covered if so what nr? Yes climate change is natural but humans are contributing to it since the industrial revolution, we should however be more worried with polution, remember that we are not killing the planet only ourselfs it will return to its normal self after a few cycles.We are contributing to it slightly*" You think option 5 then? Really? That the climate has changed this rapidly before? How long is "a cycle" over which everything fixes itself? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any human affect is caused by China, this is due to them having a unique geography that sucks large parts of their waste up into the upper atmosphere due to mountain ranges. So, nothing we do can change anything unless China takes their situation seriously. As for what should we do? We should just minimize plastic and obviously cut back pollutants and then not get in the way of the world fixing itself. It's sad that coral reefs die, but they will only ever live in a certain range, when they die, sea forrests flourish and they suck more co2 out of the air. We need to put otters near the sea etc etc and let the sea filter itself out." Can you really not pick one of those options that is closest to your view? Sounds like number 8. Climate change is man made and a serious problem but it's someone else's fault and they should fix it. Everything is the fault of China? Where did you get this unique geography theory? Completely new to me. It's China's fault from the start of the industrial revolution too? Otters near the sea which replace coral reefs? Also completely new to me. Where's this from? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 10S. The climate is changing significantly due to the actions of humanity. It can be stopped and mitigated against, as not doing so is irresponsibile and stupid. Leaders and individuals should be taking steps to limit the amount of heating being caused by us, to limit the scale of the damage caused to the species on earth, including ourselves. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not sure if this is covered if so what nr? Yes climate change is natural but humans are contributing to it since the industrial revolution, we should however be more worried with polution, remember that we are not killing the planet only ourselfs it will return to its normal self after a few cycles.We are contributing to it slightly* You think option 5 then? Really? That the climate has changed this rapidly before? How long is "a cycle" over which everything fixes itself?" I would say it is more nr3 as to the slight effect of it is humans but it is nothing to worry about, my reply to the we are not killing the planet but only ourselfs is more to those that think that climate change is only caused by us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not sure if this is covered if so what nr? Yes climate change is natural but humans are contributing to it since the industrial revolution, we should however be more worried with polution, remember that we are not killing the planet only ourselfs it will return to its normal self after a few cycles.We are contributing to it slightly* You think option 5 then? Really? That the climate has changed this rapidly before? How long is "a cycle" over which everything fixes itself?I would say it is more nr3 as to the slight effect of it is humans but it is nothing to worry about, my reply to the we are not killing the planet but only ourselfs is more to those that think that climate change is only caused by us." So you really don't think that the IPCC knows what it's talking about? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not sure if this is covered if so what nr? Yes climate change is natural but humans are contributing to it since the industrial revolution, we should however be more worried with polution, remember that we are not killing the planet only ourselfs it will return to its normal self after a few cycles.We are contributing to it slightly* You think option 5 then? Really? That the climate has changed this rapidly before? How long is "a cycle" over which everything fixes itself?I would say it is more nr3 as to the slight effect of it is humans but it is nothing to worry about, my reply to the we are not killing the planet but only ourselfs is more to those that think that climate change is only caused by us. So you really don't think that the IPCC knows what it's talking about?" No not really they are hired by the globslists to make people believe their version of it, the earth warms and cools on a range of different time scales, driven by different effects. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not sure if this is covered if so what nr? Yes climate change is natural but humans are contributing to it since the industrial revolution, we should however be more worried with polution, remember that we are not killing the planet only ourselfs it will return to its normal self after a few cycles.We are contributing to it slightly* You think option 5 then? Really? That the climate has changed this rapidly before? How long is "a cycle" over which everything fixes itself?I would say it is more nr3 as to the slight effect of it is humans but it is nothing to worry about, my reply to the we are not killing the planet but only ourselfs is more to those that think that climate change is only caused by us. So you really don't think that the IPCC knows what it's talking about?No not really they are hired by the globslists to make people believe their version of it, the earth warms and cools on a range of different time scales, driven by different effects. " Who are the "globalists"? Are they more powerful or "global" than the oil industry? The Earth has warmed and cooled before over thousands of years, not hundreds. I won't reply if you respond, not because I'm not interested but because I'd like to actually get a few more civilised responses to the question. Like yours. Thank you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"9" You did get there in the end, which I appreciate. Thank you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are are a lot of people on here who don't think that anything can or should be done about climate change. What is your actual position? If you wish to add another sensible option please do so. It would be nice if you can refrain from trolling or being abusive, but I won't hold my breath. 1. Climate change is not happening at all. The climate has not changed and is not changing. Nothing needs to be done. 2. The climate is changing slightly but it is "natural". Humanity does not effect the climate in any way. Nothing needs to be done. 3. The climate is changing slightly but it is nearly all "natural" and humanity has barely any effect. Nothing needs to be done.. 4. The climate is changing significantly but it is "natural". Humanity does not effect the climate in any way. Nothing needs to be done except dealing with the consequences. 5. The climate is changing significantly but it is nearly all "natural" and humanity has barely any effect. Nothing needs to be done except dealing with the consequences. 6. The climate is changing significantly due to the actions of humanity. It cannot be stopped or mitigated. Nothing can be done except dealing with the consequences. 7. The climate is changing significantly due to the actions of humanity. It can be stopped or mitigated but it would cost too much. Nothing should be done except dealing with the consequences. 8. The climate is changing significantly due to the actions of humanity. It can be stopped or mitigated but it it is someone else's fault. Someone else should fix it. 9. The climate is changing significantly due to the actions of humanity. It can be stopped or mitigated but I just don't care. Nothing should be done except dealing with the consequences for me." 10. The people who are actually helping to fuck the climate are the same people who will not suffer the worst effects of what they are doing. That said, some of them are likely to be the same sort of people who will want to make profit from those effects until they're forced to make profit from attempting to reverse them. Maybe humanity will adapt and things will work out. It's possible. Though surviving a warmer planet may be a lot harder than surviving an Ice Age. We're about to find out because we're already out of time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All I ever see on these threads are hypocrites. Hypocrites who use their electrically powered devices to harangue others to “do what I say, not what I do”. It’s probably getting dark in the UK about now, and it’s also probably quite cold. They’ll be sitting there with the lights and heating on, hunched over their unsustainably produced devices whilst they delight in telling others how they should live. Back home, I have solar panels, I have a hydro-electric generator that I designed and built myself using reclaimed parts. I drive an electric car, and I mainly stick to a vegetarian diet using plants and fruit that I grow myself, which have been irrigated using water from the nearby river. I don’t wear any clothing that doesn’t come from sustainable sources. Even now, I’m typing this on my laptop which is powered by a portable solar panel. Later, when the charge runs out, I will switch over to using a power-bank that has been charged on another panel. But I don’t do these things because of a perceived climate emergency – I do them because it’s a clean, healthy and guilt-free way to live. It saddens me to know that those hypocrites who harangue others to change their ways do so little to help. They may think their doing something meaningful, but when you add up all the components of their lifestyles, they’re really not. And that includes frivolously using the valuable resource of electricity to make their insignificant points to people who don’t care and never will. These hypocrites need to concentrate on what they’re doing to help, and look deeper to see what they can genuinely do, rather than waste precious time and energy to achieve precisely nothing. Do yourselves and the planet a small favour. Don’t respond to my post. Instead, turn your device off and go out for a nice walk. Make it a goal to pick up just 10 pieces of trash, more if you’re able, and dispose of them appropriately. Do something good for the planet or don’t, it’s all fine with me. Just don’t be an asshole hypocrite about it." I wasn't making a point. I haven't harangued anyone. I asked a question. One that I made as easy as possible to answer. I actually want to know what different people's climate design position is. For some reason you decided to write a great deal about something else and didn't address my question at all. Are you able to? If not, why post on this thread? Well done you on your lifestyle choices | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All I ever see on these threads are hypocrites. Hypocrites who use their electrically powered devices to harangue others to “do what I say, not what I do”. It’s probably getting dark in the UK about now, and it’s also probably quite cold. They’ll be sitting there with the lights and heating on, hunched over their unsustainably produced devices whilst they delight in telling others how they should live. Back home, I have solar panels, I have a hydro-electric generator that I designed and built myself using reclaimed parts. I drive an electric car, and I mainly stick to a vegetarian diet using plants and fruit that I grow myself, which have been irrigated using water from the nearby river. I don’t wear any clothing that doesn’t come from sustainable sources. Even now, I’m typing this on my laptop which is powered by a portable solar panel. Later, when the charge runs out, I will switch over to using a power-bank that has been charged on another panel. But I don’t do these things because of a perceived climate emergency – I do them because it’s a clean, healthy and guilt-free way to live. It saddens me to know that those hypocrites who harangue others to change their ways do so little to help. They may think their doing something meaningful, but when you add up all the components of their lifestyles, they’re really not. And that includes frivolously using the valuable resource of electricity to make their insignificant points to people who don’t care and never will. These hypocrites need to concentrate on what they’re doing to help, and look deeper to see what they can genuinely do, rather than waste precious time and energy to achieve precisely nothing. Do yourselves and the planet a small favour. Don’t respond to my post. Instead, turn your device off and go out for a nice walk. Make it a goal to pick up just 10 pieces of trash, more if you’re able, and dispose of them appropriately. Do something good for the planet or don’t, it’s all fine with me. Just don’t be an asshole hypocrite about it." Typical bloody vegetarian response!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All I ever see on these threads are hypocrites. Hypocrites who use their electrically powered devices to harangue others to “do what I say, not what I do”. It’s probably getting dark in the UK about now, and it’s also probably quite cold. They’ll be sitting there with the lights and heating on, hunched over their unsustainably produced devices whilst they delight in telling others how they should live. Back home, I have solar panels, I have a hydro-electric generator that I designed and built myself using reclaimed parts. I drive an electric car, and I mainly stick to a vegetarian diet using plants and fruit that I grow myself, which have been irrigated using water from the nearby river. I don’t wear any clothing that doesn’t come from sustainable sources. Even now, I’m typing this on my laptop which is powered by a portable solar panel. Later, when the charge runs out, I will switch over to using a power-bank that has been charged on another panel. But I don’t do these things because of a perceived climate emergency – I do them because it’s a clean, healthy and guilt-free way to live. It saddens me to know that those hypocrites who harangue others to change their ways do so little to help. They may think their doing something meaningful, but when you add up all the components of their lifestyles, they’re really not. And that includes frivolously using the valuable resource of electricity to make their insignificant points to people who don’t care and never will. These hypocrites need to concentrate on what they’re doing to help, and look deeper to see what they can genuinely do, rather than waste precious time and energy to achieve precisely nothing. Do yourselves and the planet a small favour. Don’t respond to my post. Instead, turn your device off and go out for a nice walk. Make it a goal to pick up just 10 pieces of trash, more if you’re able, and dispose of them appropriately. Do something good for the planet or don’t, it’s all fine with me. Just don’t be an asshole hypocrite about it. I wasn't making a point. I haven't harangued anyone. I asked a question. One that I made as easy as possible to answer. I actually want to know what different people's climate design position is. For some reason you decided to write a great deal about something else and didn't address my question at all. Are you able to? If not, why post on this thread? Well done you on your lifestyle choices "Ladies and Gentlemen - I present to you your hypocrite. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All I ever see on these threads are hypocrites. Hypocrites who use their electrically powered devices to harangue others to “do what I say, not what I do”. It’s probably getting dark in the UK about now, and it’s also probably quite cold. They’ll be sitting there with the lights and heating on, hunched over their unsustainably produced devices whilst they delight in telling others how they should live. Back home, I have solar panels, I have a hydro-electric generator that I designed and built myself using reclaimed parts. I drive an electric car, and I mainly stick to a vegetarian diet using plants and fruit that I grow myself, which have been irrigated using water from the nearby river. I don’t wear any clothing that doesn’t come from sustainable sources. Even now, I’m typing this on my laptop which is powered by a portable solar panel. Later, when the charge runs out, I will switch over to using a power-bank that has been charged on another panel. But I don’t do these things because of a perceived climate emergency – I do them because it’s a clean, healthy and guilt-free way to live. It saddens me to know that those hypocrites who harangue others to change their ways do so little to help. They may think their doing something meaningful, but when you add up all the components of their lifestyles, they’re really not. And that includes frivolously using the valuable resource of electricity to make their insignificant points to people who don’t care and never will. These hypocrites need to concentrate on what they’re doing to help, and look deeper to see what they can genuinely do, rather than waste precious time and energy to achieve precisely nothing. Do yourselves and the planet a small favour. Don’t respond to my post. Instead, turn your device off and go out for a nice walk. Make it a goal to pick up just 10 pieces of trash, more if you’re able, and dispose of them appropriately. Do something good for the planet or don’t, it’s all fine with me. Just don’t be an asshole hypocrite about it. I wasn't making a point. I haven't harangued anyone. I asked a question. One that I made as easy as possible to answer. I actually want to know what different people's climate design position is. For some reason you decided to write a great deal about something else and didn't address my question at all. Are you able to? If not, why post on this thread? Well done you on your lifestyle choices
Ladies and Gentlemen - I present to you your hypocrite."Splendid. Well done on... something. Are you able to respond to the question posed in the thread or not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Number 5 for me except for adding humans can slow the process." I think that is the first direct answer | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"for what it is worth i find in real life..i.e not online i know 3 or 4 ppl whos lifes revolve around nothing else but climate change but on the whole most ppl i know are more intrested where there going on holiday what new bit of rubbish there gona buy but dont need and generally worry about day to day life.easy to be right on in the twattersphere and facebook but to much like hardwork for most in real life.in a country of 60 odd million xr manage to get 20 to 30.000 excited The cynic in me wonders how many of those school kids would have marched for climate change if the marches had been held on a Saturday or Sunday? If someone had said to me whilst at school you have maths, science and PE on Friday or you can come on a march and shout 'Fuck the PM' I would have been marching for any cause. If you'd asked me to do it on Saturday and miss playing football and I would have told you to sling your hook." This | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are are a lot of people on here who don't think that anything can or should be done about climate change. What is your actual position? If you wish to add another sensible option please do so. It would be nice if you can refrain from trolling or being abusive, but I won't hold my breath. As predicted, two posters already proving true to form
1. Climate change is not happening at all. The climate has not changed and is not changing. Nothing needs to be done.
2. The climate is changing slightly but it is "natural". Humanity does not effect the climate in any way. Nothing needs to be done.
3. The climate is changing slightly but it is nearly all "natural" and humanity has barely any effect. Nothing needs to be done.
4. The climate is changing significantly but it is "natural". Humanity does not effect the climate in any way. Nothing needs to be done except dealing with the consequences.
5. The climate is changing significantly but it is nearly all "natural" and humanity has barely any effect. Nothing needs to be done except dealing with the consequences.
6. The climate is changing significantly due to the actions of humanity. It cannot be stopped or mitigated. Nothing can be done except dealing with the consequences.
7. The climate is changing significantly due to the actions of humanity. It can be stopped or mitigated but it would cost too much. Nothing should be done except dealing with the consequences.
8. The climate is changing significantly due to the actions of humanity. It can be stopped or mitigated but it it is someone else's fault. Someone else should fix it.
9. The climate is changing significantly due to the actions of humanity. It can be stopped or mitigated but I just don't care. Nothing should be done except dealing with the consequences for me."I couldn't see my view stated. My view is that climate change is natural but accelerated and perhaps exaggerated by human actions. Hope that answered the question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are are a lot of people on here who don't think that anything can or should be done about climate change. What is your actual position? If you wish to add another sensible option please do so. It would be nice if you can refrain from trolling or being abusive, but I won't hold my breath. As predicted, two posters already proving true to form
1. Climate change is not happening at all. The climate has not changed and is not changing. Nothing needs to be done.
2. The climate is changing slightly but it is "natural". Humanity does not effect the climate in any way. Nothing needs to be done.
3. The climate is changing slightly but it is nearly all "natural" and humanity has barely any effect. Nothing needs to be done.
4. The climate is changing significantly but it is "natural". Humanity does not effect the climate in any way. Nothing needs to be done except dealing with the consequences.
5. The climate is changing significantly but it is nearly all "natural" and humanity has barely any effect. Nothing needs to be done except dealing with the consequences.
6. The climate is changing significantly due to the actions of humanity. It cannot be stopped or mitigated. Nothing can be done except dealing with the consequences.
7. The climate is changing significantly due to the actions of humanity. It can be stopped or mitigated but it would cost too much. Nothing should be done except dealing with the consequences.
8. The climate is changing significantly due to the actions of humanity. It can be stopped or mitigated but it it is someone else's fault. Someone else should fix it.
9. The climate is changing significantly due to the actions of humanity. It can be stopped or mitigated but I just don't care. Nothing should be done except dealing with the consequences for me.
I couldn't see my view stated.
My view is that climate change is natural but accelerated and perhaps exaggerated by human actions.
Hope that answered the question."And what can and should be done is bring the planet to a healthier natural state such as replanting of trees where deforestation has occured as all life on this planet as a right not just humans and animals. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are are a lot of people on here who don't think that anything can or should be done about climate change. What is your actual position? If you wish to add another sensible option please do so. It would be nice if you can refrain from trolling or being abusive, but I won't hold my breath. As predicted, two posters already proving true to form
1. Climate change is not happening at all. The climate has not changed and is not changing. Nothing needs to be done.
2. The climate is changing slightly but it is "natural". Humanity does not effect the climate in any way. Nothing needs to be done.
3. The climate is changing slightly but it is nearly all "natural" and humanity has barely any effect. Nothing needs to be done.
4. The climate is changing significantly but it is "natural". Humanity does not effect the climate in any way. Nothing needs to be done except dealing with the consequences.
5. The climate is changing significantly but it is nearly all "natural" and humanity has barely any effect. Nothing needs to be done except dealing with the consequences.
6. The climate is changing significantly due to the actions of humanity. It cannot be stopped or mitigated. Nothing can be done except dealing with the consequences.
7. The climate is changing significantly due to the actions of humanity. It can be stopped or mitigated but it would cost too much. Nothing should be done except dealing with the consequences.
8. The climate is changing significantly due to the actions of humanity. It can be stopped or mitigated but it it is someone else's fault. Someone else should fix it.
9. The climate is changing significantly due to the actions of humanity. It can be stopped or mitigated but I just don't care. Nothing should be done except dealing with the consequences for me.
I couldn't see my view stated.
My view is that climate change is natural but accelerated and perhaps exaggerated by human actions.
Hope that answered the question.
And what can and should be done is bring the planet to a healthier natural state such as replanting of trees where deforestation has occured as all life on this planet as a right not just humans and animals. "Areas of the Amazon have been burned and cleared for farms to meet the world's huge meat demand. What people don't realise is that you don't have to go vegan to stop this. If people simply reduced their meat intake the demand would drop away. Personally I now only have meat every second day as opposed to one form of meat in every meal. If everyone did this, there would no longer be a profit in destroying the Amazon except for mining. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers. The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice. According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008." Repeating the same misinformation
Here's the same rebuttal...by the author.
Essentially this is old ice formed over a very long period of time.
The author does not concur with your "scientific" conclusion.
You're welcome.
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.
[...]
“At the end of the last Ice Age, the air became warmer and carried more moisture across the continent, doubling the amount of snow dropped on the ice sheet,” Zwally said.
The extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago has been slowly accumulating on the ice sheet and compacting into solid ice over millennia, thickening the ice in East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica by an average of 0.7 inches (1.7 centimeters) per year. This small thickening, sustained over thousands of years and spread over the vast expanse of these sectors of Antarctica, corresponds to a very large gain of ice - enough to outweigh the losses from fast-flowing glaciers in other parts of the continent and reduce global sea level rise. [NASA.gov, 10/30/15]
Lead Study Author Astutely Warned Deniers Would Misuse Study To Dismiss Global Warming
Lead Author Jay Zwally: “I Know Some Of The Climate Deniers Will Jump On This,” But “It Should Not Take Away From The Concern About Climate Warming.” In an interview with Nature, the study's lead author, glaciologist Jay Zwally, warned that “climate deniers” would wrongly tout the study as proof that “we don't have to worry [about global warming] as some people have been making out” :
The findings do not mean that Antarctica is not in trouble, Zwally notes. “I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don't have to worry as much as some people have been making out,” he says. “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.” As global temperatures rise, Antarctica is expected to contribute more to sea-level rise, though when exactly that effect will kick in, and to what extent, remains unclear. [Nature, 10/2/15] | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers. The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice. According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008." Still failing to actually address the thread. It seems that you cannot even explain your position. Perhaps you don't understand it?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Copy and pasted from NASA report. Not my text. Take it up with NASA" I quoted the author of the paper's response to those trying to use it for denying climate change. Scroll up. This is what I asked in the thread. Care to actually address it or that too difficult? "There are are a lot of people on here who don't think that anything can or should be done about climate change. What is your actual position? If you wish to add another sensible option please do so. It would be nice if you can refrain from trolling or being abusive, but I won't hold my breath. 1. Climate change is not happening at all. The climate has not changed and is not changing. Nothing needs to be done. 2. The climate is changing slightly but it is "natural". Humanity does not effect the climate in any way. Nothing needs to be done. 3. The climate is changing slightly but it is nearly all "natural" and humanity has barely any effect. Nothing needs to be done. 4. The climate is changing significantly but it is "natural". Humanity does not effect the climate in any way. Nothing needs to be done except dealing with the consequences. 5. The climate is changing significantly but it is nearly all "natural" and humanity has barely any effect. Nothing needs to be done except dealing with the consequences. 6. The climate is changing significantly due to the actions of humanity. It cannot be stopped or mitigated. Nothing can be done except dealing with the consequences. 7. The climate is changing significantly due to the actions of humanity. It can be stopped or mitigated but it would cost too much. Nothing should be done except dealing with the consequences. 8. The climate is changing significantly due to the actions of humanity. It can be stopped or mitigated but it it is someone else's fault. Someone else should fix it. 9. The climate is changing significantly due to the actions of humanity. It can be stopped or mitigated but I just don't care. Nothing should be done except dealing with the consequences for me." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Copy and pasted from NASA report. Not my text. Take it up with NASA" No, I'll take it up with you as you quoted the headline without reading all of those words
Sea levels are still rising.
“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"0.27 mm Ffs...... really ?" Wow. You really don't understand words do you? "If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.” This is saying that of the 1-2mm per year that sea level has been rising over the past 120 years 0.27mm is not accounted for in the modeling. The problem of climate change is not limited to water level rising though, it effects the entire climate. The clue is in the description. Global temperatures and weather patterns. Still cannot actually reply to the the actual thread either though. True to form | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"0.27 mm Ffs...... really ? Wow. You really don't understand words do you? "If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.” This is saying that of the 1-2mm per year that sea level has been rising over the past 120 years 0.27mm is not accounted for in the modeling. The problem of climate change is not limited to water level rising though, it effects the entire climate. The clue is in the description. Global temperatures and weather patterns. Still cannot actually reply to the the actual thread either though. True to form "I'm sticking to their original scaremongering title of Global warming, they spend that many decades saying it, they can keep it  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So global warming is creating more ice than is melting lol Is NASA being paid off too to say this I wonder "No. Try reading the actual article. What is your actual position on climate change denial then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"10. Climate change is a constant cycle. The success of humanity is speexing up the process but the end position will not be affected, merely the speed we get there. Science and nature will find a way and in 10,000 years the argument will be raging again." The speed at which it is happening is the while point. You haven't really got it at all have you?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers. The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice. According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008." NASA link https://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/climate-time-machine | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm more 11 it's happening, there's very little we can do about it and I don't think it will be the end of the world but will involve some calamity" This is 6 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All we need to do is devote more land to renewables. Convert to a vegetable/cereal based diet, plant billions of trees. And re-wild land that had been used for raising livestock. "Still unable to define your position on climate change denial? Do you know what it is? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"10. Climate change is a constant cycle. The success of humanity is speexing up the process but the end position will not be affected, merely the speed we get there. Science and nature will find a way and in 10,000 years the argument will be raging again. The speed at which it is happening is the while point. You haven't really got it at all have you? "I think you will find I have got it. You asked for other options if not included in your narrow list, you have one. Not my fault if you don't understand it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"10. Climate change is a constant cycle. The success of humanity is speexing up the process but the end position will not be affected, merely the speed we get there. Science and nature will find a way and in 10,000 years the argument will be raging again. The speed at which it is happening is the while point. You haven't really got it at all have you?
I think you will find I have got it. You asked for other options if not included in your narrow list, you have one. Not my fault if you don't understand it."I didn't say you hadn't responded. I was interested in why you think that global temperature changing in a century would have the same effect as it changing by the same amount over tens of thousands of years? If you break slowly you come to a stop. If you slam on the brakes you come to a stop. If you hit a wall you come to a stop. Are they all the same. You often say how clever you are so it must be true | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"10. Climate change is a constant cycle. The success of humanity is speexing up the process but the end position will not be affected, merely the speed we get there. Science and nature will find a way and in 10,000 years the argument will be raging again. The speed at which it is happening is the while point. You haven't really got it at all have you?
I think you will find I have got it. You asked for other options if not included in your narrow list, you have one. Not my fault if you don't understand it.
I didn't say you hadn't responded. I was interested in why you think that global temperature changing in a century would have the same effect as it changing by the same amount over tens of thousands of years?
If you break slowly you come to a stop. If you slam on the brakes you come to a stop. If you hit a wall you come to a stop. Are they all the same.
You often say how clever you are so it must be true "If you learn how to comprehend my original post you find all your queries responded to. If you can't its not my problem and I don't particularly care. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"10. Climate change is a constant cycle. The success of humanity is speexing up the process but the end position will not be affected, merely the speed we get there. Science and nature will find a way and in 10,000 years the argument will be raging again. The speed at which it is happening is the while point. You haven't really got it at all have you?
I think you will find I have got it. You asked for other options if not included in your narrow list, you have one. Not my fault if you don't understand it.
I didn't say you hadn't responded. I was interested in why you think that global temperature changing in a century would have the same effect as it changing by the same amount over tens of thousands of years?
If you break slowly you come to a stop. If you slam on the brakes you come to a stop. If you hit a wall you come to a stop. Are they all the same.
You often say how clever you are so it must be true
If you learn how to comprehend my original post you find all your queries responded to. If you can't its not my problem and I don't particularly care."I know. You're "clever". Yawn. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"10. Climate change is a constant cycle. The success of humanity is speexing up the process but the end position will not be affected, merely the speed we get there. Science and nature will find a way and in 10,000 years the argument will be raging again. The speed at which it is happening is the while point. You haven't really got it at all have you?
I think you will find I have got it. You asked for other options if not included in your narrow list, you have one. Not my fault if you don't understand it.
I didn't say you hadn't responded. I was interested in why you think that global temperature changing in a century would have the same effect as it changing by the same amount over tens of thousands of years?
If you break slowly you come to a stop. If you slam on the brakes you come to a stop. If you hit a wall you come to a stop. Are they all the same.
You often say how clever you are so it must be true
If you learn how to comprehend my original post you find all your queries responded to. If you can't its not my problem and I don't particularly care.
I know. You're "clever".
Yawn."I don't say I'm clever, just cleverer than you. High high that bar is set is for others to decide  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm more 11 it's happening, there's very little we can do about it and I don't think it will be the end of the world but will involve some calamity This is 6" . No not really, depends how you define significant, certainly not by my definition  . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm more 11 it's happening, there's very little we can do about it and I don't think it will be the end of the world but will involve some calamity This is 6. No not really, depends how you define significant, certainly not by my definition ."For someone who continuously states that they don't understand what science even is. I would suggest that your personal definition of "significant" in this context, is probably not an accurate definition. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm more 11 it's happening, there's very little we can do about it and I don't think it will be the end of the world but will involve some calamity This is 6. No not really, depends how you define significant, certainly not by my definition .
For someone who continuously states that they don't understand what science even is. I would suggest that your personal definition of "significant" in this context, is probably not an accurate definition.". Soz | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm more 11 it's happening, there's very little we can do about it and I don't think it will be the end of the world but will involve some calamity This is 6. No not really, depends how you define significant, certainly not by my definition .
For someone who continuously states that they don't understand what science even is. I would suggest that your personal definition of "significant" in this context, is probably not an accurate definition..
Soz "Hugs Side note. There should be a hug emoji. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm more 11 it's happening, there's very little we can do about it and I don't think it will be the end of the world but will involve some calamity This is 6. No not really, depends how you define significant, certainly not by my definition .
For someone who continuously states that they don't understand what science even is. I would suggest that your personal definition of "significant" in this context, is probably not an accurate definition..
Soz
Hugs
Side note. There should be a hug emoji.". Just for you I'll say 6 It's happening, it's going to kill us all, it's not solvable in any time frame required. There you happy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm more 11 it's happening, there's very little we can do about it and I don't think it will be the end of the world but will involve some calamity This is 6. No not really, depends how you define significant, certainly not by my definition .
For someone who continuously states that they don't understand what science even is. I would suggest that your personal definition of "significant" in this context, is probably not an accurate definition..
Soz
Hugs
Side note. There should be a hug emoji..
Just for you I'll say 6
It's happening, it's going to kill us all, it's not solvable in any time frame required.
There you happy "The discussions on if climate change is happening are pointless. It happens weather we talk about it or not. We can do our part but it's down to industry, corporations and governments to make the changes we really need. The change is coming too slowly. That only happens when people think for themselves and put the required pressure on them to change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm more 11 it's happening, there's very little we can do about it and I don't think it will be the end of the world but will involve some calamity This is 6. No not really, depends how you define significant, certainly not by my definition .
For someone who continuously states that they don't understand what science even is. I would suggest that your personal definition of "significant" in this context, is probably not an accurate definition..
Soz
Hugs
Side note. There should be a hug emoji..
Just for you I'll say 6
It's happening, it's going to kill us all, it's not solvable in any time frame required.
There you happy
The discussions on if climate change is happening are pointless. It happens weather we talk about it or not.
We can do our part but it's down to industry, corporations and governments to make the changes we really need. The change is coming too slowly. That only happens when people think for themselves and put the required pressure on them to change.
". Go on then, I'll indulge you. Whats the changes that need to happen to avoid your catastrophic outcome? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm more 11 it's happening, there's very little we can do about it and I don't think it will be the end of the world but will involve some calamity This is 6. No not really, depends how you define significant, certainly not by my definition .
For someone who continuously states that they don't understand what science even is. I would suggest that your personal definition of "significant" in this context, is probably not an accurate definition..
Soz
Hugs
Side note. There should be a hug emoji..
Just for you I'll say 6
It's happening, it's going to kill us all, it's not solvable in any time frame required.
There you happy
The discussions on if climate change is happening are pointless. It happens weather we talk about it or not.
We can do our part but it's down to industry, corporations and governments to make the changes we really need. The change is coming too slowly. That only happens when people think for themselves and put the required pressure on them to change.
.
Go on then, I'll indulge you.
Whats the changes that need to happen to avoid your catastrophic outcome?"Don't feel like you need to indulge me. We need to significantly reduce the output of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm more 11 it's happening, there's very little we can do about it and I don't think it will be the end of the world but will involve some calamity This is 6. No not really, depends how you define significant, certainly not by my definition .
For someone who continuously states that they don't understand what science even is. I would suggest that your personal definition of "significant" in this context, is probably not an accurate definition..
Soz
Hugs
Side note. There should be a hug emoji..
Just for you I'll say 6
It's happening, it's going to kill us all, it's not solvable in any time frame required.
There you happy
The discussions on if climate change is happening are pointless. It happens weather we talk about it or not.
We can do our part but it's down to industry, corporations and governments to make the changes we really need. The change is coming too slowly. That only happens when people think for themselves and put the required pressure on them to change.
.
Go on then, I'll indulge you.
Whats the changes that need to happen to avoid your catastrophic outcome?
Don't feel like you need to indulge me.
We need to significantly reduce the output of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.". No wonder you got a degree in this shit... Your a geniarse | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm more 11 it's happening, there's very little we can do about it and I don't think it will be the end of the world but will involve some calamity This is 6. No not really, depends how you define significant, certainly not by my definition .
For someone who continuously states that they don't understand what science even is. I would suggest that your personal definition of "significant" in this context, is probably not an accurate definition..
Soz
Hugs
Side note. There should be a hug emoji..
Just for you I'll say 6
It's happening, it's going to kill us all, it's not solvable in any time frame required.
There you happy
The discussions on if climate change is happening are pointless. It happens weather we talk about it or not.
We can do our part but it's down to industry, corporations and governments to make the changes we really need. The change is coming too slowly. That only happens when people think for themselves and put the required pressure on them to change.
.
Go on then, I'll indulge you.
Whats the changes that need to happen to avoid your catastrophic outcome?
Don't feel like you need to indulge me.
We need to significantly reduce the output of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere..
No wonder you got a degree in this shit... Your a geniarse "You're a very strange man. You asked a question. I answered in simple terms. You became confused. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm more 11 it's happening, there's very little we can do about it and I don't think it will be the end of the world but will involve some calamity This is 6. No not really, depends how you define significant, certainly not by my definition .
For someone who continuously states that they don't understand what science even is. I would suggest that your personal definition of "significant" in this context, is probably not an accurate definition..
Soz
Hugs
Side note. There should be a hug emoji..
Just for you I'll say 6
It's happening, it's going to kill us all, it's not solvable in any time frame required.
There you happy
The discussions on if climate change is happening are pointless. It happens weather we talk about it or not.
We can do our part but it's down to industry, corporations and governments to make the changes we really need. The change is coming too slowly. That only happens when people think for themselves and put the required pressure on them to change.
.
Go on then, I'll indulge you.
Whats the changes that need to happen to avoid your catastrophic outcome?
Don't feel like you need to indulge me.
We need to significantly reduce the output of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere..
No wonder you got a degree in this shit... Your a geniarse
You're a very strange man.
You asked a question. I answered in simple terms.
You became confused.". Don't panic we can colonise Mars, yea the devil's in the detail | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm more 11 it's happening, there's very little we can do about it and I don't think it will be the end of the world but will involve some calamity This is 6. No not really, depends how you define significant, certainly not by my definition .
For someone who continuously states that they don't understand what science even is. I would suggest that your personal definition of "significant" in this context, is probably not an accurate definition..
Soz
Hugs
Side note. There should be a hug emoji..
Just for you I'll say 6
It's happening, it's going to kill us all, it's not solvable in any time frame required.
There you happy
The discussions on if climate change is happening are pointless. It happens weather we talk about it or not.
We can do our part but it's down to industry, corporations and governments to make the changes we really need. The change is coming too slowly. That only happens when people think for themselves and put the required pressure on them to change.
.
Go on then, I'll indulge you.
Whats the changes that need to happen to avoid your catastrophic outcome?
Don't feel like you need to indulge me.
We need to significantly reduce the output of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere..
No wonder you got a degree in this shit... Your a geniarse
You're a very strange man.
You asked a question. I answered in simple terms.
You became confused..
Don't panic we can colonise Mars, yea the devil's in the detail ". I'm still waiting on this "change" you think industry will make if we put enough pressure on them?. Any details yet or you still googling the results | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm more 11 it's happening, there's very little we can do about it and I don't think it will be the end of the world but will involve some calamity This is 6. No not really, depends how you define significant, certainly not by my definition .
For someone who continuously states that they don't understand what science even is. I would suggest that your personal definition of "significant" in this context, is probably not an accurate definition..
Soz
Hugs
Side note. There should be a hug emoji..
Just for you I'll say 6
It's happening, it's going to kill us all, it's not solvable in any time frame required.
There you happy
The discussions on if climate change is happening are pointless. It happens weather we talk about it or not.
We can do our part but it's down to industry, corporations and governments to make the changes we really need. The change is coming too slowly. That only happens when people think for themselves and put the required pressure on them to change.
.
Go on then, I'll indulge you.
Whats the changes that need to happen to avoid your catastrophic outcome?
Don't feel like you need to indulge me.
We need to significantly reduce the output of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere..
No wonder you got a degree in this shit... Your a geniarse
You're a very strange man.
You asked a question. I answered in simple terms.
You became confused..
Don't panic we can colonise Mars, yea the devil's in the detail .
I'm still waiting on this "change" you think industry will make if we put enough pressure on them?.
Any details yet or you still googling the results "I fear that providing you more information, even very basic generic information, Will just cause further confusion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm more 11 it's happening, there's very little we can do about it and I don't think it will be the end of the world but will involve some calamity This is 6. No not really, depends how you define significant, certainly not by my definition .
For someone who continuously states that they don't understand what science even is. I would suggest that your personal definition of "significant" in this context, is probably not an accurate definition..
Soz
Hugs
Side note. There should be a hug emoji..
Just for you I'll say 6
It's happening, it's going to kill us all, it's not solvable in any time frame required.
There you happy
The discussions on if climate change is happening are pointless. It happens weather we talk about it or not.
We can do our part but it's down to industry, corporations and governments to make the changes we really need. The change is coming too slowly. That only happens when people think for themselves and put the required pressure on them to change.
.
Go on then, I'll indulge you.
Whats the changes that need to happen to avoid your catastrophic outcome?
Don't feel like you need to indulge me.
We need to significantly reduce the output of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere..
No wonder you got a degree in this shit... Your a geniarse
You're a very strange man.
You asked a question. I answered in simple terms.
You became confused..
Don't panic we can colonise Mars, yea the devil's in the detail .
I'm still waiting on this "change" you think industry will make if we put enough pressure on them?.
Any details yet or you still googling the results
I fear that providing you more information, even very basic generic information, Will just cause further confusion. ". Oh go on, I want to learn something other than "we need to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions". Like HOW? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm more 11 it's happening, there's very little we can do about it and I don't think it will be the end of the world but will involve some calamity This is 6. No not really, depends how you define significant, certainly not by my definition .
For someone who continuously states that they don't understand what science even is. I would suggest that your personal definition of "significant" in this context, is probably not an accurate definition..
Soz
Hugs
Side note. There should be a hug emoji..
Just for you I'll say 6
It's happening, it's going to kill us all, it's not solvable in any time frame required.
There you happy
The discussions on if climate change is happening are pointless. It happens weather we talk about it or not.
We can do our part but it's down to industry, corporations and governments to make the changes we really need. The change is coming too slowly. That only happens when people think for themselves and put the required pressure on them to change.
.
Go on then, I'll indulge you.
Whats the changes that need to happen to avoid your catastrophic outcome?
Don't feel like you need to indulge me.
We need to significantly reduce the output of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere..
No wonder you got a degree in this shit... Your a geniarse
You're a very strange man.
You asked a question. I answered in simple terms.
You became confused..
Don't panic we can colonise Mars, yea the devil's in the detail .
I'm still waiting on this "change" you think industry will make if we put enough pressure on them?.
Any details yet or you still googling the results
I fear that providing you more information, even very basic generic information, Will just cause further confusion. .
Oh go on, I want to learn something other than "we need to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions".
Like HOW?"Build a lot of nuclear reactors and shut down coal and gas. Build wind farms and solar farms and geothermal plants where feasible. Even nightie solar is an option now. Build hydrogen generation plants to fuel heavy vehicles, trains, shipping and long range air transport. Prevent further oil exploration and use R&D spend to improve renewable energy and electricity storage technology from batteries to mechanical. Scale-up carbon capture technologies. Redirect venture capital and investment from ride hailing apps and reality TV to climate improving technology as that suggested above. Massively reduce meat consumption which is more energy efficient. It can be done. It just isn't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm more 11 it's happening, there's very little we can do about it and I don't think it will be the end of the world but will involve some calamity This is 6. No not really, depends how you define significant, certainly not by my definition .
For someone who continuously states that they don't understand what science even is. I would suggest that your personal definition of "significant" in this context, is probably not an accurate definition..
Soz
Hugs
Side note. There should be a hug emoji..
Just for you I'll say 6
It's happening, it's going to kill us all, it's not solvable in any time frame required.
There you happy
The discussions on if climate change is happening are pointless. It happens weather we talk about it or not.
We can do our part but it's down to industry, corporations and governments to make the changes we really need. The change is coming too slowly. That only happens when people think for themselves and put the required pressure on them to change.
.
Go on then, I'll indulge you.
Whats the changes that need to happen to avoid your catastrophic outcome?
Don't feel like you need to indulge me.
We need to significantly reduce the output of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere..
No wonder you got a degree in this shit... Your a geniarse
You're a very strange man.
You asked a question. I answered in simple terms.
You became confused..
Don't panic we can colonise Mars, yea the devil's in the detail .
I'm still waiting on this "change" you think industry will make if we put enough pressure on them?.
Any details yet or you still googling the results
I fear that providing you more information, even very basic generic information, Will just cause further confusion. .
Oh go on, I want to learn something other than "we need to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions".
Like HOW?
Build a lot of nuclear reactors and shut down coal and gas.
Build wind farms and solar farms and geothermal plants where feasible. Even nightie solar is an option now.
Build hydrogen generation plants to fuel heavy vehicles, trains, shipping and long range air transport.
Prevent further oil exploration and use R&D spend to improve renewable energy and electricity storage technology from batteries to mechanical. Scale-up carbon capture technologies.
Redirect venture capital and investment from ride hailing apps and reality TV to climate improving technology as that suggested above.
Massively reduce meat consumption which is more energy efficient.
It can be done. It just isn't."I fear you have got soaring above his head with this post | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm more 11 it's happening, there's very little we can do about it and I don't think it will be the end of the world but will involve some calamity This is 6. No not really, depends how you define significant, certainly not by my definition .
For someone who continuously states that they don't understand what science even is. I would suggest that your personal definition of "significant" in this context, is probably not an accurate definition..
Soz
Hugs
Side note. There should be a hug emoji..
Just for you I'll say 6
It's happening, it's going to kill us all, it's not solvable in any time frame required.
There you happy
The discussions on if climate change is happening are pointless. It happens weather we talk about it or not.
We can do our part but it's down to industry, corporations and governments to make the changes we really need. The change is coming too slowly. That only happens when people think for themselves and put the required pressure on them to change.
.
Go on then, I'll indulge you.
Whats the changes that need to happen to avoid your catastrophic outcome?
Don't feel like you need to indulge me.
We need to significantly reduce the output of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere..
No wonder you got a degree in this shit... Your a geniarse
You're a very strange man.
You asked a question. I answered in simple terms.
You became confused..
Don't panic we can colonise Mars, yea the devil's in the detail .
I'm still waiting on this "change" you think industry will make if we put enough pressure on them?.
Any details yet or you still googling the results
I fear that providing you more information, even very basic generic information, Will just cause further confusion. .
Oh go on, I want to learn something other than "we need to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions".
Like HOW?
Build a lot of nuclear reactors and shut down coal and gas.
Build wind farms and solar farms and geothermal plants where feasible. Even nightie solar is an option now.
Build hydrogen generation plants to fuel heavy vehicles, trains, shipping and long range air transport.
Prevent further oil exploration and use R&D spend to improve renewable energy and electricity storage technology from batteries to mechanical. Scale-up carbon capture technologies.
Redirect venture capital and investment from ride hailing apps and reality TV to climate improving technology as that suggested above.
Massively reduce meat consumption which is more energy efficient.
It can be done. It just isn't.". Half that stuff doesn't exist and building numerous nuclear plants would take twenty years and consume an awful lot of C02 doing it,(concrete) then you've got the worry of building them on the supposed rising sea levels (Fukushima). Good luck legislating what people can eat. Hydrogen for air travel? Hindenburg to Ibiza .
Solar and wind can't power the world this has been known for decades, we've already peaked out on wind in this country, it's a fill in energy.
You claim it can be done but isn't why?.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm more 11 it's happening, there's very little we can do about it and I don't think it will be the end of the world but will involve some calamity This is 6. No not really, depends how you define significant, certainly not by my definition .
For someone who continuously states that they don't understand what science even is. I would suggest that your personal definition of "significant" in this context, is probably not an accurate definition..
Soz
Hugs
Side note. There should be a hug emoji..
Just for you I'll say 6
It's happening, it's going to kill us all, it's not solvable in any time frame required.
There you happy
The discussions on if climate change is happening are pointless. It happens weather we talk about it or not.
We can do our part but it's down to industry, corporations and governments to make the changes we really need. The change is coming too slowly. That only happens when people think for themselves and put the required pressure on them to change.
.
Go on then, I'll indulge you.
Whats the changes that need to happen to avoid your catastrophic outcome?
Don't feel like you need to indulge me.
We need to significantly reduce the output of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere..
No wonder you got a degree in this shit... Your a geniarse
You're a very strange man.
You asked a question. I answered in simple terms.
You became confused..
Don't panic we can colonise Mars, yea the devil's in the detail .
I'm still waiting on this "change" you think industry will make if we put enough pressure on them?.
Any details yet or you still googling the results
I fear that providing you more information, even very basic generic information, Will just cause further confusion. .
Oh go on, I want to learn something other than "we need to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions".
Like HOW?
Build a lot of nuclear reactors and shut down coal and gas.
Build wind farms and solar farms and geothermal plants where feasible. Even nightie solar is an option now.
Build hydrogen generation plants to fuel heavy vehicles, trains, shipping and long range air transport.
Prevent further oil exploration and use R&D spend to improve renewable energy and electricity storage technology from batteries to mechanical. Scale-up carbon capture technologies.
Redirect venture capital and investment from ride hailing apps and reality TV to climate improving technology as that suggested above.
Massively reduce meat consumption which is more energy efficient.
It can be done. It just isn't..
Half that stuff doesn't exist and building numerous nuclear plants would take twenty years and consume an awful lot of C02 doing it,(concrete) then you've got the worry of building them on the supposed rising sea levels (Fukushima).
Good luck legislating what people can eat.
Hydrogen for air travel? Hindenburg to Ibiza .
Solar and wind can't power the world this has been known for decades, we've already peaked out on wind in this country, it's a fill in energy.
You claim it can be done but isn't why?.
"Actually, most of the "stuff" does exist and is already generating electricity more cheaply than fossil fuels. A lot of R&D is limited by, guess what, money and resource. Things change pretty quickly when they are focused and key energy storage and generation methods already exist. It does not, in fact, take 20 years to build a nuclear reactor. They take 5. They have them in submarines and ships. Did you notice that? Russia has built one offshore. Hydrogen is perfectly capable of fueling an existing jet engine with relatively minor modifications. There is no peak for offshore wind, nor the potential for wave generated energy. I have told you why it hasn't been done, but I will say so explicitly. The political will has not generated the legislation. Finance and resources are over-allocated to polluting and non-product I've industries. Stop trying to look clever. You are way out of your racial and political babble comfort zone. Again. Go back to describing me as a Pakistani-Italian banana headed communist and the importance of English ethno-ntionalistic hegemony. You know, racism with big words. That's your level | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm more 11 it's happening, there's very little we can do about it and I don't think it will be the end of the world but will involve some calamity This is 6. No not really, depends how you define significant, certainly not by my definition .
For someone who continuously states that they don't understand what science even is. I would suggest that your personal definition of "significant" in this context, is probably not an accurate definition..
Soz
Hugs
Side note. There should be a hug emoji..
Just for you I'll say 6
It's happening, it's going to kill us all, it's not solvable in any time frame required.
There you happy
The discussions on if climate change is happening are pointless. It happens weather we talk about it or not.
We can do our part but it's down to industry, corporations and governments to make the changes we really need. The change is coming too slowly. That only happens when people think for themselves and put the required pressure on them to change.
.
Go on then, I'll indulge you.
Whats the changes that need to happen to avoid your catastrophic outcome?
Don't feel like you need to indulge me.
We need to significantly reduce the output of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere..
No wonder you got a degree in this shit... Your a geniarse
You're a very strange man.
You asked a question. I answered in simple terms.
You became confused..
Don't panic we can colonise Mars, yea the devil's in the detail .
I'm still waiting on this "change" you think industry will make if we put enough pressure on them?.
Any details yet or you still googling the results
I fear that providing you more information, even very basic generic information, Will just cause further confusion. .
Oh go on, I want to learn something other than "we need to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions".
Like HOW?
Build a lot of nuclear reactors and shut down coal and gas.
Build wind farms and solar farms and geothermal plants where feasible. Even nightie solar is an option now.
Build hydrogen generation plants to fuel heavy vehicles, trains, shipping and long range air transport.
Prevent further oil exploration and use R&D spend to improve renewable energy and electricity storage technology from batteries to mechanical. Scale-up carbon capture technologies.
Redirect venture capital and investment from ride hailing apps and reality TV to climate improving technology as that suggested above.
Massively reduce meat consumption which is more energy efficient.
It can be done. It just isn't..
Half that stuff doesn't exist and building numerous nuclear plants would take twenty years and consume an awful lot of C02 doing it,(concrete) then you've got the worry of building them on the supposed rising sea levels (Fukushima).
Good luck legislating what people can eat.
Hydrogen for air travel? Hindenburg to Ibiza .
Solar and wind can't power the world this has been known for decades, we've already peaked out on wind in this country, it's a fill in energy.
You claim it can be done but isn't why?.
Actually, most of the "stuff" does exist and is already generating electricity more cheaply than fossil fuels.
A lot of R&D is limited by, guess what, money and resource. Things change pretty quickly when they are focused and key energy storage and generation methods already exist.
It does not, in fact, take 20 years to build a nuclear reactor. They take 5.
They have them in submarines and ships. Did you notice that?
Russia has built one offshore.
Hydrogen is perfectly capable of fueling an existing jet engine with relatively minor modifications.
There is no peak for offshore wind, nor the potential for wave generated energy.
I have told you why it hasn't been done, but I will say so explicitly.
The political will has not generated the legislation.
Finance and resources are over-allocated to polluting and non-product I've industries.
Stop trying to look clever. You are way out of your racial and political babble comfort zone. Again.
Go back to describing me as a Pakistani-Italian banana headed communist and the importance of English ethno-ntionalistic hegemony. You know, racism with big words. That's your level ". Omg you're so obsessed with me saying things about you that I haven't .
There is a peak wind, it's called over producing at the wrong times, the more you build the more it over producers at peak and deminishers the returns on other production and therefore reducers allocation to other resources (it's well known in the industry sector).
5 years for a nuclear reactor (hmmm you better tell EDF who are FIVE years behind on all there new builds) and of course you wanted to build several (even on your bullshit timescale 4 would take 20 years).
You can make any engine run on hydrogen because guess what, it's what they run on now Muppet , what do you think there burning now Tetley tea?.
Still good luck storing the hydrogen in your plane when it gets stuck by lightning.
There is no grand conspiracy to keep oil, if the current fuel monopoly worked like that we'd still be running around in steam trains burning coal, what actually happens is the most cost effective (less energy needed to produce) fuel is always the go to option (hence why the world tried to go nuclear 40 years ago).
Again that option was problematic for other reasons.
There is no magic wand to swap too just because you say there is, swapping an entire infrastructure takes energy, we get that energy from mostly fossil fuel, you can't just build shit and ten years later say oh yea that didn't work out let's try this!.
Stopping selling cars altogether and making the current ones rumble on twenty more years produces less C02 output than building 100s of millions of new electric cars because there's a C02 output to all the new infrastructure costs to run the new electric cars and another C02 output on building them.
I don't know what your Pakistani Italian granddad taught you? but mine said measure twice cut once
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm more 11 it's happening, there's very little we can do about it and I don't think it will be the end of the world but will involve some calamity This is 6. No not really, depends how you define significant, certainly not by my definition .
For someone who continuously states that they don't understand what science even is. I would suggest that your personal definition of "significant" in this context, is probably not an accurate definition..
Soz
Hugs
Side note. There should be a hug emoji..
Just for you I'll say 6
It's happening, it's going to kill us all, it's not solvable in any time frame required.
There you happy
The discussions on if climate change is happening are pointless. It happens weather we talk about it or not.
We can do our part but it's down to industry, corporations and governments to make the changes we really need. The change is coming too slowly. That only happens when people think for themselves and put the required pressure on them to change.
.
Go on then, I'll indulge you.
Whats the changes that need to happen to avoid your catastrophic outcome?
Don't feel like you need to indulge me.
We need to significantly reduce the output of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere..
No wonder you got a degree in this shit... Your a geniarse
You're a very strange man.
You asked a question. I answered in simple terms.
You became confused..
Don't panic we can colonise Mars, yea the devil's in the detail .
I'm still waiting on this "change" you think industry will make if we put enough pressure on them?.
Any details yet or you still googling the results
I fear that providing you more information, even very basic generic information, Will just cause further confusion. .
Oh go on, I want to learn something other than "we need to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions".
Like HOW?
Build a lot of nuclear reactors and shut down coal and gas.
Build wind farms and solar farms and geothermal plants where feasible. Even nightie solar is an option now.
Build hydrogen generation plants to fuel heavy vehicles, trains, shipping and long range air transport.
Prevent further oil exploration and use R&D spend to improve renewable energy and electricity storage technology from batteries to mechanical. Scale-up carbon capture technologies.
Redirect venture capital and investment from ride hailing apps and reality TV to climate improving technology as that suggested above.
Massively reduce meat consumption which is more energy efficient.
It can be done. It just isn't..
Half that stuff doesn't exist and building numerous nuclear plants would take twenty years and consume an awful lot of C02 doing it,(concrete) then you've got the worry of building them on the supposed rising sea levels (Fukushima).
Good luck legislating what people can eat.
Hydrogen for air travel? Hindenburg to Ibiza .
Solar and wind can't power the world this has been known for decades, we've already peaked out on wind in this country, it's a fill in energy.
You claim it can be done but isn't why?.
Actually, most of the "stuff" does exist and is already generating electricity more cheaply than fossil fuels.
A lot of R&D is limited by, guess what, money and resource. Things change pretty quickly when they are focused and key energy storage and generation methods already exist.
It does not, in fact, take 20 years to build a nuclear reactor. They take 5.
They have them in submarines and ships. Did you notice that?
Russia has built one offshore.
Hydrogen is perfectly capable of fueling an existing jet engine with relatively minor modifications.
There is no peak for offshore wind, nor the potential for wave generated energy.
I have told you why it hasn't been done, but I will say so explicitly.
The political will has not generated the legislation.
Finance and resources are over-allocated to polluting and non-product I've industries.
Stop trying to look clever. You are way out of your racial and political babble comfort zone. Again.
Go back to describing me as a Pakistani-Italian banana headed communist and the importance of English ethno-ntionalistic hegemony. You know, racism with big words. That's your level "******************** And don't you just LOVE prodding folk with yer big stick, eh, Jack....??? NO-ONE uses the 'racist' slur more than YOU. I have a mental image of you as some kind of attention seeking, pseudo-intellectual nobody, satisfied only by the controversy you generate. I say you are, by your own admission, completely dishonourable. I do not enter into debate with such people as you. End of. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm more 11 it's happening, there's very little we can do about it and I don't think it will be the end of the world but will involve some calamity This is 6. No not really, depends how you define significant, certainly not by my definition .
For someone who continuously states that they don't understand what science even is. I would suggest that your personal definition of "significant" in this context, is probably not an accurate definition..
Soz
Hugs
Side note. There should be a hug emoji..
Just for you I'll say 6
It's happening, it's going to kill us all, it's not solvable in any time frame required.
There you happy
The discussions on if climate change is happening are pointless. It happens weather we talk about it or not.
We can do our part but it's down to industry, corporations and governments to make the changes we really need. The change is coming too slowly. That only happens when people think for themselves and put the required pressure on them to change.
.
Go on then, I'll indulge you.
Whats the changes that need to happen to avoid your catastrophic outcome?
Don't feel like you need to indulge me.
We need to significantly reduce the output of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere..
No wonder you got a degree in this shit... Your a geniarse
You're a very strange man.
You asked a question. I answered in simple terms.
You became confused..
Don't panic we can colonise Mars, yea the devil's in the detail .
I'm still waiting on this "change" you think industry will make if we put enough pressure on them?.
Any details yet or you still googling the results
I fear that providing you more information, even very basic generic information, Will just cause further confusion. .
Oh go on, I want to learn something other than "we need to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions".
Like HOW?
Build a lot of nuclear reactors and shut down coal and gas.
Build wind farms and solar farms and geothermal plants where feasible. Even nightie solar is an option now.
Build hydrogen generation plants to fuel heavy vehicles, trains, shipping and long range air transport.
Prevent further oil exploration and use R&D spend to improve renewable energy and electricity storage technology from batteries to mechanical. Scale-up carbon capture technologies.
Redirect venture capital and investment from ride hailing apps and reality TV to climate improving technology as that suggested above.
Massively reduce meat consumption which is more energy efficient.
It can be done. It just isn't..
Half that stuff doesn't exist and building numerous nuclear plants would take twenty years and consume an awful lot of C02 doing it,(concrete) then you've got the worry of building them on the supposed rising sea levels (Fukushima).
Good luck legislating what people can eat.
Hydrogen for air travel? Hindenburg to Ibiza .
Solar and wind can't power the world this has been known for decades, we've already peaked out on wind in this country, it's a fill in energy.
You claim it can be done but isn't why?.
Actually, most of the "stuff" does exist and is already generating electricity more cheaply than fossil fuels.
A lot of R&D is limited by, guess what, money and resource. Things change pretty quickly when they are focused and key energy storage and generation methods already exist.
It does not, in fact, take 20 years to build a nuclear reactor. They take 5.
They have them in submarines and ships. Did you notice that?
Russia has built one offshore.
Hydrogen is perfectly capable of fueling an existing jet engine with relatively minor modifications.
There is no peak for offshore wind, nor the potential for wave generated energy.
I have told you why it hasn't been done, but I will say so explicitly.
The political will has not generated the legislation.
Finance and resources are over-allocated to polluting and non-product I've industries.
Stop trying to look clever. You are way out of your racial and political babble comfort zone. Again.
Go back to describing me as a Pakistani-Italian banana headed communist and the importance of English ethno-ntionalistic hegemony. You know, racism with big words. That's your level
********************
And don't you just LOVE prodding folk with yer big stick, eh, Jack....???
NO-ONE uses the 'racist' slur more than YOU.
I have a mental image of you as some kind of attention seeking, pseudo-intellectual nobody, satisfied only by the controversy you generate.
I say you are, by your own admission, completely dishonourable.
I do not enter into debate with such people as you.
End of.
"I wasn't talking to you, but out of interest, who have I used a racist comment about? Are you delaying that if someone else is racist towards me or to people in general I shouldn't call it out? Please don't picture me mentallym The idea of you doing that gives me the creeps. Which version of climate change denial were you in favour of by the way, or did you just write purely to insult me? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm more 11 it's happening, there's very little we can do about it and I don't think it will be the end of the world but will involve some calamity This is 6. No not really, depends how you define significant, certainly not by my definition .
For someone who continuously states that they don't understand what science even is. I would suggest that your personal definition of "significant" in this context, is probably not an accurate definition..
Soz
Hugs
Side note. There should be a hug emoji..
Just for you I'll say 6
It's happening, it's going to kill us all, it's not solvable in any time frame required.
There you happy
The discussions on if climate change is happening are pointless. It happens weather we talk about it or not.
We can do our part but it's down to industry, corporations and governments to make the changes we really need. The change is coming too slowly. That only happens when people think for themselves and put the required pressure on them to change.
.
Go on then, I'll indulge you.
Whats the changes that need to happen to avoid your catastrophic outcome?
Don't feel like you need to indulge me.
We need to significantly reduce the output of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere..
No wonder you got a degree in this shit... Your a geniarse
You're a very strange man.
You asked a question. I answered in simple terms.
You became confused..
Don't panic we can colonise Mars, yea the devil's in the detail .
I'm still waiting on this "change" you think industry will make if we put enough pressure on them?.
Any details yet or you still googling the results
I fear that providing you more information, even very basic generic information, Will just cause further confusion. .
Oh go on, I want to learn something other than "we need to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions".
Like HOW?
Build a lot of nuclear reactors and shut down coal and gas.
Build wind farms and solar farms and geothermal plants where feasible. Even nightie solar is an option now.
Build hydrogen generation plants to fuel heavy vehicles, trains, shipping and long range air transport.
Prevent further oil exploration and use R&D spend to improve renewable energy and electricity storage technology from batteries to mechanical. Scale-up carbon capture technologies.
Redirect venture capital and investment from ride hailing apps and reality TV to climate improving technology as that suggested above.
Massively reduce meat consumption which is more energy efficient.
It can be done. It just isn't..
Half that stuff doesn't exist and building numerous nuclear plants would take twenty years and consume an awful lot of C02 doing it,(concrete) then you've got the worry of building them on the supposed rising sea levels (Fukushima).
Good luck legislating what people can eat.
Hydrogen for air travel? Hindenburg to Ibiza .
Solar and wind can't power the world this has been known for decades, we've already peaked out on wind in this country, it's a fill in energy.
You claim it can be done but isn't why?.
Actually, most of the "stuff" does exist and is already generating electricity more cheaply than fossil fuels.
A lot of R&D is limited by, guess what, money and resource. Things change pretty quickly when they are focused and key energy storage and generation methods already exist.
It does not, in fact, take 20 years to build a nuclear reactor. They take 5.
They have them in submarines and ships. Did you notice that?
Russia has built one offshore.
Hydrogen is perfectly capable of fueling an existing jet engine with relatively minor modifications.
There is no peak for offshore wind, nor the potential for wave generated energy.
I have told you why it hasn't been done, but I will say so explicitly.
The political will has not generated the legislation.
Finance and resources are over-allocated to polluting and non-product I've industries.
Stop trying to look clever. You are way out of your racial and political babble comfort zone. Again.
Go back to describing me as a Pakistani-Italian banana headed communist and the importance of English ethno-ntionalistic hegemony. You know, racism with big words. That's your level .
Omg you're so obsessed with me saying things about you that I haven't .
There is a peak wind, it's called over producing at the wrong times, the more you build the more it over producers at peak and deminishers the returns on other production and therefore reducers allocation to other resources (it's well known in the industry sector).
5 years for a nuclear reactor (hmmm you better tell EDF who are FIVE years behind on all there new builds) and of course you wanted to build several (even on your bullshit timescale 4 would take 20 years).
You can make any engine run on hydrogen because guess what, it's what they run on now Muppet , what do you think there burning now Tetley tea?.
Still good luck storing the hydrogen in your plane when it gets stuck by lightning.
There is no grand conspiracy to keep oil, if the current fuel monopoly worked like that we'd still be running around in steam trains burning coal, what actually happens is the most cost effective (less energy needed to produce) fuel is always the go to option (hence why the world tried to go nuclear 40 years ago).
Again that option was problematic for other reasons.
There is no magic wand to swap too just because you say there is, swapping an entire infrastructure takes energy, we get that energy from mostly fossil fuel, you can't just build shit and ten years later say oh yea that didn't work out let's try this!.
Stopping selling cars altogether and making the current ones rumble on twenty more years produces less C02 output than building 100s of millions of new electric cars because there's a C02 output to all the new infrastructure costs to run the new electric cars and another C02 output on building them.
I don't know what your Pakistani Italian granddad taught you? but mine said measure twice cut once
Energy storage. Do you know what that means relative to your "peak wind"?
Nuclear reactor construction is delayed due to planning and financing. I may have discussed that as a problem
You are a simpleton if you actually believe that hydrogen is more dangerous than petrol or aviation fuel, and yes a jet engine can be retrofitted to run on hydrogen.
Yes, hydrogen fuel cells are perfectly capable of running the entire heavy transport industry. You could even use it for cooking and heating with a change in the infrastructure.
You said it cannot be done. It can. It's expensive and difficult. It can be done.
Is the disaster you describe more or less expensive in lives and treasure.
Keep finding ways to do nothing and give up.
Keep being a "clever" racist.
Those are unrelated but factual with reference to you.
I dislike you on both counts, especially as you are so vocal about both ". Wow so much hatred because I disagree with you?. Let's take hydrogen?. Why don't you think industry has moved to this free abundant energy that you claim can do everything?. hydrogen fuel cells require hydrogen, the space shuttle ran on hydrogen, it doesn't end well when things go wrong!!. Probably doable for the occasional space shuttle but hmmm not so sure about millions of flights a year?. Battery storage, why don't you think everybody is doing it, we overproduce on wind, why don't the grid companies build these storage facilities to store free energy that they can then sell on to us at huge profits?. And no I didn't say it CANNOT be done,I said you can't go wasting shit loads of energy (C02) on any hairbrained scheme you've googled and then presumed there's a giant conspiracy by corporations to hide this free fuel from the public. And to this paragraph that you wrote, "You are a simpleton if you actually believe that hydrogen is more dangerous than petrol or aviation fuel, and yes a jet engine can be retrofitted to run on hydrogen" Jesus I don't know where to begin but try this experiment, pour a litre of kerosene (aviation fuel) into a bucket while smoking a fag then try the same thing with hydrogen, get back to me on the results | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm more 11 it's happening, there's very little we can do about it and I don't think it will be the end of the world but will involve some calamity This is 6. No not really, depends how you define significant, certainly not by my definition .
For someone who continuously states that they don't understand what science even is. I would suggest that your personal definition of "significant" in this context, is probably not an accurate definition..
Soz
Hugs
Side note. There should be a hug emoji..
Just for you I'll say 6
It's happening, it's going to kill us all, it's not solvable in any time frame required.
There you happy
The discussions on if climate change is happening are pointless. It happens weather we talk about it or not.
We can do our part but it's down to industry, corporations and governments to make the changes we really need. The change is coming too slowly. That only happens when people think for themselves and put the required pressure on them to change.
.
Go on then, I'll indulge you.
Whats the changes that need to happen to avoid your catastrophic outcome?
Don't feel like you need to indulge me.
We need to significantly reduce the output of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere..
No wonder you got a degree in this shit... Your a geniarse
You're a very strange man.
You asked a question. I answered in simple terms.
You became confused..
Don't panic we can colonise Mars, yea the devil's in the detail .
I'm still waiting on this "change" you think industry will make if we put enough pressure on them?.
Any details yet or you still googling the results
I fear that providing you more information, even very basic generic information, Will just cause further confusion. .
Oh go on, I want to learn something other than "we need to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions".
Like HOW?
Build a lot of nuclear reactors and shut down coal and gas.
Build wind farms and solar farms and geothermal plants where feasible. Even nightie solar is an option now.
Build hydrogen generation plants to fuel heavy vehicles, trains, shipping and long range air transport.
Prevent further oil exploration and use R&D spend to improve renewable energy and electricity storage technology from batteries to mechanical. Scale-up carbon capture technologies.
Redirect venture capital and investment from ride hailing apps and reality TV to climate improving technology as that suggested above.
Massively reduce meat consumption which is more energy efficient.
It can be done. It just isn't..
Half that stuff doesn't exist and building numerous nuclear plants would take twenty years and consume an awful lot of C02 doing it,(concrete) then you've got the worry of building them on the supposed rising sea levels (Fukushima).
Good luck legislating what people can eat.
Hydrogen for air travel? Hindenburg to Ibiza .
Solar and wind can't power the world this has been known for decades, we've already peaked out on wind in this country, it's a fill in energy.
You claim it can be done but isn't why?.
Actually, most of the "stuff" does exist and is already generating electricity more cheaply than fossil fuels.
A lot of R&D is limited by, guess what, money and resource. Things change pretty quickly when they are focused and key energy storage and generation methods already exist.
It does not, in fact, take 20 years to build a nuclear reactor. They take 5.
They have them in submarines and ships. Did you notice that?
Russia has built one offshore.
Hydrogen is perfectly capable of fueling an existing jet engine with relatively minor modifications.
There is no peak for offshore wind, nor the potential for wave generated energy.
I have told you why it hasn't been done, but I will say so explicitly.
The political will has not generated the legislation.
Finance and resources are over-allocated to polluting and non-product I've industries.
Stop trying to look clever. You are way out of your racial and political babble comfort zone. Again.
Go back to describing me as a Pakistani-Italian banana headed communist and the importance of English ethno-ntionalistic hegemony. You know, racism with big words. That's your level
********************
And don't you just LOVE prodding folk with yer big stick, eh, Jack....???
NO-ONE uses the 'racist' slur more than YOU.
I have a mental image of you as some kind of attention seeking, pseudo-intellectual nobody, satisfied only by the controversy you generate.
I say you are, by your own admission, completely dishonourable.
I do not enter into debate with such people as you.
End of.
I wasn't talking to you, but out of interest, who have I used a racist comment about? Are you delaying that if someone else is racist towards me or to people in general I shouldn't call it out?
Please don't picture me mentallym The idea of you doing that gives me the creeps.
Which version of climate change denial were you in favour of by the way, or did you just write purely to insult me? "***************** Dishonourable. Final word. Goodbye. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm more 11 it's happening, there's very little we can do about it and I don't think it will be the end of the world but will involve some calamity This is 6. No not really, depends how you define significant, certainly not by my definition .
For someone who continuously states that they don't understand what science even is. I would suggest that your personal definition of "significant" in this context, is probably not an accurate definition..
Soz
Hugs
Side note. There should be a hug emoji..
Just for you I'll say 6
It's happening, it's going to kill us all, it's not solvable in any time frame required.
There you happy
The discussions on if climate change is happening are pointless. It happens weather we talk about it or not.
We can do our part but it's down to industry, corporations and governments to make the changes we really need. The change is coming too slowly. That only happens when people think for themselves and put the required pressure on them to change.
.
Go on then, I'll indulge you.
Whats the changes that need to happen to avoid your catastrophic outcome?
Don't feel like you need to indulge me.
We need to significantly reduce the output of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere..
No wonder you got a degree in this shit... Your a geniarse
You're a very strange man.
You asked a question. I answered in simple terms.
You became confused..
Don't panic we can colonise Mars, yea the devil's in the detail .
I'm still waiting on this "change" you think industry will make if we put enough pressure on them?.
Any details yet or you still googling the results
I fear that providing you more information, even very basic generic information, Will just cause further confusion. .
Oh go on, I want to learn something other than "we need to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions".
Like HOW?
Build a lot of nuclear reactors and shut down coal and gas.
Build wind farms and solar farms and geothermal plants where feasible. Even nightie solar is an option now.
Build hydrogen generation plants to fuel heavy vehicles, trains, shipping and long range air transport.
Prevent further oil exploration and use R&D spend to improve renewable energy and electricity storage technology from batteries to mechanical. Scale-up carbon capture technologies.
Redirect venture capital and investment from ride hailing apps and reality TV to climate improving technology as that suggested above.
Massively reduce meat consumption which is more energy efficient.
It can be done. It just isn't..
Half that stuff doesn't exist and building numerous nuclear plants would take twenty years and consume an awful lot of C02 doing it,(concrete) then you've got the worry of building them on the supposed rising sea levels (Fukushima).
Good luck legislating what people can eat.
Hydrogen for air travel? Hindenburg to Ibiza .
Solar and wind can't power the world this has been known for decades, we've already peaked out on wind in this country, it's a fill in energy.
You claim it can be done but isn't why?.
Actually, most of the "stuff" does exist and is already generating electricity more cheaply than fossil fuels.
A lot of R&D is limited by, guess what, money and resource. Things change pretty quickly when they are focused and key energy storage and generation methods already exist.
It does not, in fact, take 20 years to build a nuclear reactor. They take 5.
They have them in submarines and ships. Did you notice that?
Russia has built one offshore.
Hydrogen is perfectly capable of fueling an existing jet engine with relatively minor modifications.
There is no peak for offshore wind, nor the potential for wave generated energy.
I have told you why it hasn't been done, but I will say so explicitly.
The political will has not generated the legislation.
Finance and resources are over-allocated to polluting and non-product I've industries.
Stop trying to look clever. You are way out of your racial and political babble comfort zone. Again.
Go back to describing me as a Pakistani-Italian banana headed communist and the importance of English ethno-ntionalistic hegemony. You know, racism with big words. That's your level .
Omg you're so obsessed with me saying things about you that I haven't .
There is a peak wind, it's called over producing at the wrong times, the more you build the more it over producers at peak and deminishers the returns on other production and therefore reducers allocation to other resources (it's well known in the industry sector).
5 years for a nuclear reactor (hmmm you better tell EDF who are FIVE years behind on all there new builds) and of course you wanted to build several (even on your bullshit timescale 4 would take 20 years).
You can make any engine run on hydrogen because guess what, it's what they run on now Muppet , what do you think there burning now Tetley tea?.
Still good luck storing the hydrogen in your plane when it gets stuck by lightning.
There is no grand conspiracy to keep oil, if the current fuel monopoly worked like that we'd still be running around in steam trains burning coal, what actually happens is the most cost effective (less energy needed to produce) fuel is always the go to option (hence why the world tried to go nuclear 40 years ago).
Again that option was problematic for other reasons.
There is no magic wand to swap too just because you say there is, swapping an entire infrastructure takes energy, we get that energy from mostly fossil fuel, you can't just build shit and ten years later say oh yea that didn't work out let's try this!.
Stopping selling cars altogether and making the current ones rumble on twenty more years produces less C02 output than building 100s of millions of new electric cars because there's a C02 output to all the new infrastructure costs to run the new electric cars and another C02 output on building them.
I don't know what your Pakistani Italian granddad taught you? but mine said measure twice cut once
Energy storage. Do you know what that means relative to your "peak wind"?
Nuclear reactor construction is delayed due to planning and financing. I may have discussed that as a problem
You are a simpleton if you actually believe that hydrogen is more dangerous than petrol or aviation fuel, and yes a jet engine can be retrofitted to run on hydrogen.
Yes, hydrogen fuel cells are perfectly capable of running the entire heavy transport industry. You could even use it for cooking and heating with a change in the infrastructure.
You said it cannot be done. It can. It's expensive and difficult. It can be done.
Is the disaster you describe more or less expensive in lives and treasure.
Keep finding ways to do nothing and give up.
Keep being a "clever" racist.
Those are unrelated but factual with reference to you.
I dislike you on both counts, especially as you are so vocal about both .
Wow so much hatred because I disagree with you?.
Let's take hydrogen?.
Why don't you think industry has moved to this free abundant energy that you claim can do everything?. hydrogen fuel cells require hydrogen, the space shuttle ran on hydrogen, it doesn't end well when things go wrong!!. Probably doable for the occasional space shuttle but hmmm not so sure about millions of flights a year?.
Battery storage, why don't you think everybody is doing it, we overproduce on wind, why don't the grid companies build these storage facilities to store free energy that they can then sell on to us at huge profits?.
And no I didn't say it CANNOT be done,I said you can't go wasting shit loads of energy (C02) on any hairbrained scheme you've googled and then presumed there's a giant conspiracy by corporations to hide this free fuel from the public.
And to this paragraph that you wrote, "You are a simpleton if you actually believe that hydrogen is more dangerous than petrol or aviation fuel, and yes a jet engine can be retrofitted to run on hydrogen"
Jesus I don't know where to begin but try this experiment, pour a litre of kerosene (aviation fuel) into a bucket while smoking a fag then try the same thing with hydrogen, get back to me on the results
"I don't hate you. I dislike you. "The discussions on if climate change is happening are pointless. It happens weather we talk about it or not." Your words. Wriggle away. It doesn't actually have to happen though. That's ether the point. Hydrogen is not free. It is produced by electrolysis. It costs money to build the infrastructure and legislation to drive change. The hydrocarbon industry exists, makes lots of money, and pays lots of taxes. I didn't say that there's a massive conspiracy. It's economics. Subsidy of the oil industry and no cost Petrol is explosive too. So is aviation fuel. However, a pressurised hydrogen fuel tank dissipates very quickly so there is a very short burn. Liquid fuels continue to burn because it doesn't go anywhere. It's the diesel and lacquer on the skin of the that Hindenburg that fueled the fire. There is also a whole series of YouTube videos on "Experimental Investigation of Liquid Hydrogen Hazards, 1960" Tell me about how you'd pour Hydrogen into a bucket
Look it all up. You are so wrong | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good to see this thread has remained light hearted "Does it ever go any other way? At least no one mentioned Greta Thunberg so no one has started foaming at the mouth... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good to see this thread has remained light hearted "Nothing like a light hatred conversation... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's funny when people throw around ideas like build more nuclear reactors as though it is so simple and it is going to solve all the problems: https://www.leonardodicaprio.org/the-7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-is-not-the-answer-to-solve-climate-change/" It's not "easy". It's expensive and complicated. It is not even new technology though. So actually it can solve the problem if we decide that this solution is acceptable. What do you think makes it hard? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's funny when people throw around ideas like build more nuclear reactors as though it is so simple and it is going to solve all the problems: https://www.leonardodicaprio.org/the-7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-is-not-the-answer-to-solve-climate-change/ It's not "easy". It's expensive and complicated. It is not even new technology though. So actually it can solve the problem if we decide that this solution is acceptable. What do you think makes it hard?" The problem is that the petrochemical industry fund our leaders and spend a lot of money on lobbyists and false information which clearly some people lap up. So while we all want a cleaner environment and better world for our children, simply doing small things like separating our waste isn't going to save us. We needed to elect leaders who put the environment first. We didn't. You might not have noticed that Trump rolled back many of Obama's environmental protection laws because he chose to murder someone in Iran on the same day. This significant and deliberate act of putting profit before the environment didn't even make it into the front page news. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What was the hindenburg filled with?" . Well if we all flew in then still we'd have far less coronavirus about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What was the hindenburg filled with?" You're impervious to information too aren't you?
Hindenburg contained hydrogen and diesel and was coated with a flammable sealent.
Why is that any more relevant than the cars burning on the side of the motorway?
Just out of interest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Science is blaming ourselves for this level of co2 we have now but who the hell gets the blame for 3 million years ago..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I heard Boris Johnson on the radio yesterday say..... "we haven't seen the current levels of co2 for 3 million years" 3 million years
Science is blaming ourselves for this level of co2 we have now but who the hell gets the blame for 3 million years ago..... "those pesky dinosaurs farting.they wiped themselves out | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not sure if this is covered if so what nr? Yes climate change is natural but humans are contributing to it since the industrial revolution, we should however be more worried with polution, remember that we are not killing the planet only ourselfs it will return to its normal self after a few cycles.We are contributing to it slightly* You think option 5 then? Really? That the climate has changed this rapidly before? How long is "a cycle" over which everything fixes itself?I would say it is more nr3 as to the slight effect of it is humans but it is nothing to worry about, my reply to the we are not killing the planet but only ourselfs is more to those that think that climate change is only caused by us. So you really don't think that the IPCC knows what it's talking about?No not really they are hired by the globslists to make people believe their version of it, the earth warms and cools on a range of different time scales, driven by different effects. Who are the "globalists"? Are they more powerful or "global" than the oil industry? The Earth has warmed and cooled before over thousands of years, not hundreds. I won't reply if you respond, not because I'm not interested but because I'd like to actually get a few more civilised responses to the question. Like yours. Thank you." It is a civilised response and it seems you cant accept others views than those who belive in climate change and yes they are one of the richest people on earth that decides and makes money on different things and it seems that the climate model is not fact. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not sure if this is covered if so what nr? Yes climate change is natural but humans are contributing to it since the industrial revolution, we should however be more worried with polution, remember that we are not killing the planet only ourselfs it will return to its normal self after a few cycles.We are contributing to it slightly* You think option 5 then? Really? That the climate has changed this rapidly before? How long is "a cycle" over which everything fixes itself?I would say it is more nr3 as to the slight effect of it is humans but it is nothing to worry about, my reply to the we are not killing the planet but only ourselfs is more to those that think that climate change is only caused by us. So you really don't think that the IPCC knows what it's talking about?No not really they are hired by the globslists to make people believe their version of it, the earth warms and cools on a range of different time scales, driven by different effects. Who are the "globalists"? Are they more powerful or "global" than the oil industry? The Earth has warmed and cooled before over thousands of years, not hundreds. I won't reply if you respond, not because I'm not interested but because I'd like to actually get a few more civilised responses to the question. Like yours. Thank you.It is a civilised response and it seems you cant accept others views than those who belive in climate change and yes they are one of the richest people on earth that decides and makes money on different things and it seems that the climate model is not fact." I think you have a misunderstanding here. We don't need to "believe" in the science of man made climate change. It's been well published and explained. If you read it, you can understand it. This removes the need for "belief". Knowledge and understanding of a subject cures ignorance and the need for belief. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not sure if this is covered if so what nr? Yes climate change is natural but humans are contributing to it since the industrial revolution, we should however be more worried with polution, remember that we are not killing the planet only ourselfs it will return to its normal self after a few cycles.We are contributing to it slightly* You think option 5 then? Really? That the climate has changed this rapidly before? How long is "a cycle" over which everything fixes itself?I would say it is more nr3 as to the slight effect of it is humans but it is nothing to worry about, my reply to the we are not killing the planet but only ourselfs is more to those that think that climate change is only caused by us. So you really don't think that the IPCC knows what it's talking about?No not really they are hired by the globslists to make people believe their version of it, the earth warms and cools on a range of different time scales, driven by different effects. Who are the "globalists"? Are they more powerful or "global" than the oil industry? The Earth has warmed and cooled before over thousands of years, not hundreds. I won't reply if you respond, not because I'm not interested but because I'd like to actually get a few more civilised responses to the question. Like yours. Thank you.It is a civilised response and it seems you cant accept others views than those who belive in climate change and yes they are one of the richest people on earth that decides and makes money on different things and it seems that the climate model is not fact. I think you have a misunderstanding here. We don't need to "believe" in the science of man made climate change. It's been well published and explained. If you read it, you can understand it. This removes the need for "belief". Knowledge and understanding of a subject cures ignorance and the need for belief." I do understand it and it is something we have to agree to disagree on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not sure if this is covered if so what nr? Yes climate change is natural but humans are contributing to it since the industrial revolution, we should however be more worried with polution, remember that we are not killing the planet only ourselfs it will return to its normal self after a few cycles.We are contributing to it slightly* You think option 5 then? Really? That the climate has changed this rapidly before? How long is "a cycle" over which everything fixes itself?I would say it is more nr3 as to the slight effect of it is humans but it is nothing to worry about, my reply to the we are not killing the planet but only ourselfs is more to those that think that climate change is only caused by us. So you really don't think that the IPCC knows what it's talking about?No not really they are hired by the globslists to make people believe their version of it, the earth warms and cools on a range of different time scales, driven by different effects. Who are the "globalists"? Are they more powerful or "global" than the oil industry? The Earth has warmed and cooled before over thousands of years, not hundreds. I won't reply if you respond, not because I'm not interested but because I'd like to actually get a few more civilised responses to the question. Like yours. Thank you.It is a civilised response and it seems you cant accept others views than those who belive in climate change and yes they are one of the richest people on earth that decides and makes money on different things and it seems that the climate model is not fact. I think you have a misunderstanding here. We don't need to "believe" in the science of man made climate change. It's been well published and explained. If you read it, you can understand it. This removes the need for "belief". Knowledge and understanding of a subject cures ignorance and the need for belief.I do understand it and it is something we have to agree to disagree on." It's not something we can agree or disagree on. As an example. Water boils at 100 degrees C. At sea level. People can disagree with it. But their belief that it boils at another temperature is not as valid as actual science that shows you what's happening, and why it's happening. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not sure if this is covered if so what nr? Yes climate change is natural but humans are contributing to it since the industrial revolution, we should however be more worried with polution, remember that we are not killing the planet only ourselfs it will return to its normal self after a few cycles.We are contributing to it slightly* You think option 5 then? Really? That the climate has changed this rapidly before? How long is "a cycle" over which everything fixes itself?I would say it is more nr3 as to the slight effect of it is humans but it is nothing to worry about, my reply to the we are not killing the planet but only ourselfs is more to those that think that climate change is only caused by us. So you really don't think that the IPCC knows what it's talking about?No not really they are hired by the globslists to make people believe their version of it, the earth warms and cools on a range of different time scales, driven by different effects. Who are the "globalists"? Are they more powerful or "global" than the oil industry? The Earth has warmed and cooled before over thousands of years, not hundreds. I won't reply if you respond, not because I'm not interested but because I'd like to actually get a few more civilised responses to the question. Like yours. Thank you.It is a civilised response and it seems you cant accept others views than those who belive in climate change and yes they are one of the richest people on earth that decides and makes money on different things and it seems that the climate model is not fact. I think you have a misunderstanding here. We don't need to "believe" in the science of man made climate change. It's been well published and explained. If you read it, you can understand it. This removes the need for "belief". Knowledge and understanding of a subject cures ignorance and the need for belief.I do understand it and it is something we have to agree to disagree on. It's not something we can agree or disagree on. As an example. Water boils at 100 degrees C. At sea level. People can disagree with it. But their belief that it boils at another temperature is not as valid as actual science that shows you what's happening, and why it's happening." Yes science does that but climate is never constant, it is always changing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We don't need to "believe" in the science of man made climate change. It's been well published and explained. If you read it, you can understand it. This removes the need for "belief". Knowledge and understanding of a subject cures ignorance and the need for belief." Right, if Boris "was" correct in what he quoted yesterday that the world hasn't had this level of co2 for 3 million years but humans are being blamed for the current levels of co2, if we've had it before humans were around then how why or how is it our fault it's happening again? I may research what Boris said at some point to find it's base but till then.. Just a thought | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The last time CO2 levels were this high was during the Pliocene Epoch, 5.3 to 2.6 million years ago, when the Earth was several degrees warmer, sea levels were an estimated 50 feet higher than they are today, and forests grew as far north as the Arctic. “Earth was a very different place,” Rob Jackson, a professor of earth system science at Stanford University " Doesn't explain why the planet was like this back then, no humans, cars, factories, planes, anything really yet now we're being told this time it is our fault | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Climate Change is the bi product of Human overpopulation cut down on breeding and things will get better 1960 - World population 3.4 Billion Today 7.5 Billion" How do we really know though when it was just like this 3 million years ago with no human influence? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not sure if this is covered if so what nr? Yes climate change is natural but humans are contributing to it since the industrial revolution, we should however be more worried with polution, remember that we are not killing the planet only ourselfs it will return to its normal self after a few cycles.We are contributing to it slightly* You think option 5 then? Really? That the climate has changed this rapidly before? How long is "a cycle" over which everything fixes itself?I would say it is more nr3 as to the slight effect of it is humans but it is nothing to worry about, my reply to the we are not killing the planet but only ourselfs is more to those that think that climate change is only caused by us. So you really don't think that the IPCC knows what it's talking about?No not really they are hired by the globslists to make people believe their version of it, the earth warms and cools on a range of different time scales, driven by different effects. Who are the "globalists"? Are they more powerful or "global" than the oil industry? The Earth has warmed and cooled before over thousands of years, not hundreds. I won't reply if you respond, not because I'm not interested but because I'd like to actually get a few more civilised responses to the question. Like yours. Thank you.It is a civilised response and it seems you cant accept others views than those who belive in climate change and yes they are one of the richest people on earth that decides and makes money on different things and it seems that the climate model is not fact. I think you have a misunderstanding here. We don't need to "believe" in the science of man made climate change. It's been well published and explained. If you read it, you can understand it. This removes the need for "belief". Knowledge and understanding of a subject cures ignorance and the need for belief.I do understand it and it is something we have to agree to disagree on. It's not something we can agree or disagree on. As an example. Water boils at 100 degrees C. At sea level. People can disagree with it. But their belief that it boils at another temperature is not as valid as actual science that shows you what's happening, and why it's happening.Yes science does that but climate is never constant, it is always changing." Right. So you're saying you're unfamiliar with climate science. That's fine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not sure if this is covered if so what nr? Yes climate change is natural but humans are contributing to it since the industrial revolution, we should however be more worried with polution, remember that we are not killing the planet only ourselfs it will return to its normal self after a few cycles.We are contributing to it slightly* You think option 5 then? Really? That the climate has changed this rapidly before? How long is "a cycle" over which everything fixes itself?I would say it is more nr3 as to the slight effect of it is humans but it is nothing to worry about, my reply to the we are not killing the planet but only ourselfs is more to those that think that climate change is only caused by us. So you really don't think that the IPCC knows what it's talking about?No not really they are hired by the globslists to make people believe their version of it, the earth warms and cools on a range of different time scales, driven by different effects. Who are the "globalists"? Are they more powerful or "global" than the oil industry? The Earth has warmed and cooled before over thousands of years, not hundreds. I won't reply if you respond, not because I'm not interested but because I'd like to actually get a few more civilised responses to the question. Like yours. Thank you.It is a civilised response and it seems you cant accept others views than those who belive in climate change and yes they are one of the richest people on earth that decides and makes money on different things and it seems that the climate model is not fact. I think you have a misunderstanding here. We don't need to "believe" in the science of man made climate change. It's been well published and explained. If you read it, you can understand it. This removes the need for "belief". Knowledge and understanding of a subject cures ignorance and the need for belief.I do understand it and it is something we have to agree to disagree on. It's not something we can agree or disagree on. As an example. Water boils at 100 degrees C. At sea level. People can disagree with it. But their belief that it boils at another temperature is not as valid as actual science that shows you what's happening, and why it's happening.Yes science does that but climate is never constant, it is always changing. Right. So you're saying you're unfamiliar with climate science. That's fine. " No I am not but they are exaggerating abit there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not sure if this is covered if so what nr? Yes climate change is natural but humans are contributing to it since the industrial revolution, we should however be more worried with polution, remember that we are not killing the planet only ourselfs it will return to its normal self after a few cycles.We are contributing to it slightly* You think option 5 then? Really? That the climate has changed this rapidly before? How long is "a cycle" over which everything fixes itself?I would say it is more nr3 as to the slight effect of it is humans but it is nothing to worry about, my reply to the we are not killing the planet but only ourselfs is more to those that think that climate change is only caused by us. So you really don't think that the IPCC knows what it's talking about?No not really they are hired by the globslists to make people believe their version of it, the earth warms and cools on a range of different time scales, driven by different effects. Who are the "globalists"? Are they more powerful or "global" than the oil industry? The Earth has warmed and cooled before over thousands of years, not hundreds. I won't reply if you respond, not because I'm not interested but because I'd like to actually get a few more civilised responses to the question. Like yours. Thank you.It is a civilised response and it seems you cant accept others views than those who belive in climate change and yes they are one of the richest people on earth that decides and makes money on different things and it seems that the climate model is not fact. I think you have a misunderstanding here. We don't need to "believe" in the science of man made climate change. It's been well published and explained. If you read it, you can understand it. This removes the need for "belief". Knowledge and understanding of a subject cures ignorance and the need for belief.I do understand it and it is something we have to agree to disagree on. It's not something we can agree or disagree on. As an example. Water boils at 100 degrees C. At sea level. People can disagree with it. But their belief that it boils at another temperature is not as valid as actual science that shows you what's happening, and why it's happening.Yes science does that but climate is never constant, it is always changing. Right. So you're saying you're unfamiliar with climate science. That's fine. No I am not but they are exaggerating abit there." Can you give me an example? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What was the hindenburg filled with? You're impervious to information too aren't you?
Hindenburg contained hydrogen and diesel and was coated with a flammable sealent.
Why is that any more relevant than the cars burning on the side of the motorway?
Just out of interest."It was a simple question you are unable to answer properly as you didn't like the answer. But so you do know; the generally accepted 'scientific' theory for the fire is a single spark igniting hydrogen. I'm out, ttfn | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not sure if this is covered if so what nr? Yes climate change is natural but humans are contributing to it since the industrial revolution, we should however be more worried with polution, remember that we are not killing the planet only ourselfs it will return to its normal self after a few cycles.We are contributing to it slightly* You think option 5 then? Really? That the climate has changed this rapidly before? How long is "a cycle" over which everything fixes itself?I would say it is more nr3 as to the slight effect of it is humans but it is nothing to worry about, my reply to the we are not killing the planet but only ourselfs is more to those that think that climate change is only caused by us. So you really don't think that the IPCC knows what it's talking about?No not really they are hired by the globslists to make people believe their version of it, the earth warms and cools on a range of different time scales, driven by different effects. Who are the "globalists"? Are they more powerful or "global" than the oil industry? The Earth has warmed and cooled before over thousands of years, not hundreds. I won't reply if you respond, not because I'm not interested but because I'd like to actually get a few more civilised responses to the question. Like yours. Thank you.It is a civilised response and it seems you cant accept others views than those who belive in climate change and yes they are one of the richest people on earth that decides and makes money on different things and it seems that the climate model is not fact. I think you have a misunderstanding here. We don't need to "believe" in the science of man made climate change. It's been well published and explained. If you read it, you can understand it. This removes the need for "belief". Knowledge and understanding of a subject cures ignorance and the need for belief.I do understand it and it is something we have to agree to disagree on. It's not something we can agree or disagree on. As an example. Water boils at 100 degrees C. At sea level. People can disagree with it. But their belief that it boils at another temperature is not as valid as actual science that shows you what's happening, and why it's happening.Yes science does that but climate is never constant, it is always changing. Right. So you're saying you're unfamiliar with climate science. That's fine. No I am not but they are exaggerating abit there. Can you give me an example?" Well the natural cycle is very powerful and can change seasons, science cant predict it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not sure if this is covered if so what nr? Yes climate change is natural but humans are contributing to it since the industrial revolution, we should however be more worried with polution, remember that we are not killing the planet only ourselfs it will return to its normal self after a few cycles.We are contributing to it slightly* You think option 5 then? Really? That the climate has changed this rapidly before? How long is "a cycle" over which everything fixes itself?I would say it is more nr3 as to the slight effect of it is humans but it is nothing to worry about, my reply to the we are not killing the planet but only ourselfs is more to those that think that climate change is only caused by us. So you really don't think that the IPCC knows what it's talking about?No not really they are hired by the globslists to make people believe their version of it, the earth warms and cools on a range of different time scales, driven by different effects. Who are the "globalists"? Are they more powerful or "global" than the oil industry? The Earth has warmed and cooled before over thousands of years, not hundreds. I won't reply if you respond, not because I'm not interested but because I'd like to actually get a few more civilised responses to the question. Like yours. Thank you.It is a civilised response and it seems you cant accept others views than those who belive in climate change and yes they are one of the richest people on earth that decides and makes money on different things and it seems that the climate model is not fact. I think you have a misunderstanding here. We don't need to "believe" in the science of man made climate change. It's been well published and explained. If you read it, you can understand it. This removes the need for "belief". Knowledge and understanding of a subject cures ignorance and the need for belief.I do understand it and it is something we have to agree to disagree on. It's not something we can agree or disagree on. As an example. Water boils at 100 degrees C. At sea level. People can disagree with it. But their belief that it boils at another temperature is not as valid as actual science that shows you what's happening, and why it's happening.Yes science does that but climate is never constant, it is always changing. Right. So you're saying you're unfamiliar with climate science. That's fine. No I am not but they are exaggerating abit there. Can you give me an example?Well the natural cycle is very powerful and can change seasons, science cant predict it." We can predict the seasons. And have done for tens of thousands of years. Don't confuse natural cycles which happen over 20,000 to 40,000 years with manmade warming that's happening in 200-300 years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not sure if this is covered if so what nr? Yes climate change is natural but humans are contributing to it since the industrial revolution, we should however be more worried with polution, remember that we are not killing the planet only ourselfs it will return to its normal self after a few cycles.We are contributing to it slightly* You think option 5 then? Really? That the climate has changed this rapidly before? How long is "a cycle" over which everything fixes itself?I would say it is more nr3 as to the slight effect of it is humans but it is nothing to worry about, my reply to the we are not killing the planet but only ourselfs is more to those that think that climate change is only caused by us. So you really don't think that the IPCC knows what it's talking about?No not really they are hired by the globslists to make people believe their version of it, the earth warms and cools on a range of different time scales, driven by different effects. Who are the "globalists"? Are they more powerful or "global" than the oil industry? The Earth has warmed and cooled before over thousands of years, not hundreds. I won't reply if you respond, not because I'm not interested but because I'd like to actually get a few more civilised responses to the question. Like yours. Thank you.It is a civilised response and it seems you cant accept others views than those who belive in climate change and yes they are one of the richest people on earth that decides and makes money on different things and it seems that the climate model is not fact. I think you have a misunderstanding here. We don't need to "believe" in the science of man made climate change. It's been well published and explained. If you read it, you can understand it. This removes the need for "belief". Knowledge and understanding of a subject cures ignorance and the need for belief.I do understand it and it is something we have to agree to disagree on. It's not something we can agree or disagree on. As an example. Water boils at 100 degrees C. At sea level. People can disagree with it. But their belief that it boils at another temperature is not as valid as actual science that shows you what's happening, and why it's happening.Yes science does that but climate is never constant, it is always changing. Right. So you're saying you're unfamiliar with climate science. That's fine. No I am not but they are exaggerating abit there. Can you give me an example?Well the natural cycle is very powerful and can change seasons, science cant predict it. We can predict the seasons. And have done for tens of thousands of years. Don't confuse natural cycles which happen over 20,000 to 40,000 years with manmade warming that's happening in 200-300 years. " I dont but as I said at the start of the thread was that we do contribute to climate change but not as much some say as it is exaggerated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not sure if this is covered if so what nr? Yes climate change is natural but humans are contributing to it since the industrial revolution, we should however be more worried with polution, remember that we are not killing the planet only ourselfs it will return to its normal self after a few cycles.We are contributing to it slightly* You think option 5 then? Really? That the climate has changed this rapidly before? How long is "a cycle" over which everything fixes itself?I would say it is more nr3 as to the slight effect of it is humans but it is nothing to worry about, my reply to the we are not killing the planet but only ourselfs is more to those that think that climate change is only caused by us. So you really don't think that the IPCC knows what it's talking about?No not really they are hired by the globslists to make people believe their version of it, the earth warms and cools on a range of different time scales, driven by different effects. Who are the "globalists"? Are they more powerful or "global" than the oil industry? The Earth has warmed and cooled before over thousands of years, not hundreds. I won't reply if you respond, not because I'm not interested but because I'd like to actually get a few more civilised responses to the question. Like yours. Thank you.It is a civilised response and it seems you cant accept others views than those who belive in climate change and yes they are one of the richest people on earth that decides and makes money on different things and it seems that the climate model is not fact. I think you have a misunderstanding here. We don't need to "believe" in the science of man made climate change. It's been well published and explained. If you read it, you can understand it. This removes the need for "belief". Knowledge and understanding of a subject cures ignorance and the need for belief.I do understand it and it is something we have to agree to disagree on. It's not something we can agree or disagree on. As an example. Water boils at 100 degrees C. At sea level. People can disagree with it. But their belief that it boils at another temperature is not as valid as actual science that shows you what's happening, and why it's happening.Yes science does that but climate is never constant, it is always changing. Right. So you're saying you're unfamiliar with climate science. That's fine. No I am not but they are exaggerating abit there. Can you give me an example?Well the natural cycle is very powerful and can change seasons, science cant predict it. We can predict the seasons. And have done for tens of thousands of years. Don't confuse natural cycles which happen over 20,000 to 40,000 years with manmade warming that's happening in 200-300 years. I dont but as I said at the start of the thread was that we do contribute to climate change but not as much some say as it is exaggerated." I understand what you're saying. But I was wondering if you could give an example of the exaggerated climate change science. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not sure if this is covered if so what nr? Yes climate change is natural but humans are contributing to it since the industrial revolution, we should however be more worried with polution, remember that we are not killing the planet only ourselfs it will return to its normal self after a few cycles.We are contributing to it slightly* You think option 5 then? Really? That the climate has changed this rapidly before? How long is "a cycle" over which everything fixes itself?I would say it is more nr3 as to the slight effect of it is humans but it is nothing to worry about, my reply to the we are not killing the planet but only ourselfs is more to those that think that climate change is only caused by us. So you really don't think that the IPCC knows what it's talking about?No not really they are hired by the globslists to make people believe their version of it, the earth warms and cools on a range of different time scales, driven by different effects. Who are the "globalists"? Are they more powerful or "global" than the oil industry? The Earth has warmed and cooled before over thousands of years, not hundreds. I won't reply if you respond, not because I'm not interested but because I'd like to actually get a few more civilised responses to the question. Like yours. Thank you.It is a civilised response and it seems you cant accept others views than those who belive in climate change and yes they are one of the richest people on earth that decides and makes money on different things and it seems that the climate model is not fact." Actually, rather than taking offence you could reread what I wrote. I did find your response civilised and was hoping for more of the same before going into detail. However, as that no longer seems possible please do explain to me how climate science is not "fact" and how there is some global conspiracy that was so well funded and connected that it managed to overcome the global funding and political influence of the entire petrochemical industry? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What was the hindenburg filled with? You're impervious to information too aren't you?
Hindenburg contained hydrogen and diesel and was coated with a flammable sealent.
Why is that any more relevant than the cars burning on the side of the motorway?
Just out of interest.
It was a simple question you are unable to answer properly as you didn't like the answer. But so you do know; the generally accepted 'scientific' theory for the fire is a single spark igniting hydrogen. I'm out, ttfn "Your question: "What was the hindenburg filled with?" Is not answered by this? "Hindenburg contained hydrogen and diesel and was coated with a flammable sealent." What was the answer that you wanted?
Funnily enough, when hydrogen is being used as a fuel in the 21st century rather than a boyancy aid in the 20th century the technology and use case is rather different
If the Hindenburg had contained as much petrol or diesel or aviation fuel as the huge volumes of hydrogen hydrogen used for flight and was lit, do you think that there would not have been as much fire?
Well done on your Wiki search. Did you know that the generally accepted scientific theory for the use of a spark plug is to ignite petrol in an engine?
One again, just for simplicity's sake as that seems to be necessary:
Hydrogen is flammable. That's what makes it a fuel
Petrol, diesel and aviation fuel are flammable too.
As a liquid or pressurised gas hydrogen dissipates very, very much faster in a catastrophic incident. I've posted the search terms to explanations and videos.
You keep "believing" what ever you wish and if you wish to run away with your "final" word then please do so. Hopefully you'll feel better "knowing" that you "won" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Climate Change is the bi product of Human overpopulation cut down on breeding and things will get better 1960 - World population 3.4 Billion Today 7.5 Billion" There is something in this of course. Fewer people, less use of resource and less pollution. This is being changed. It takes time but population is actually stabilising thanks mainly to the education and empowerment of women. Look up some of Hans Rosling's videos. Imposing population reduction causes its own problems though. China has a heavily male population of single children each supporting two parents and some grandparents. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Found this The last time CO2 levels were this high was during the Pliocene Epoch, 5.3 to 2.6 million years ago, when the Earth was several degrees warmer, sea levels were an estimated 50 feet higher than they are today, and forests grew as far north as the Arctic. “Earth was a very different place,” Rob Jackson, a professor of earth system science at Stanford University Doesn't explain why the planet was like this back then, no humans, cars, factories, planes, anything really yet now we're being told this time it is our fault "Did you stated which denial position you take? Is it not clear to you that a change in temperature over thousands of years will have very different consequences to the same change in temperature happening over a few hundred? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Try igniting kerosene, don't use a match though, try a blowtorch you'll still be there next week trying to ignite it, you can weld a metal tank containing diesel, I know this because I've done it, just evacuate the fumes and leave the cap off, diesel engines work on compression ignition with high atomisation of the fuel, without that it just doesn't ignite. Everything's flammable, but some are more volatile than others. If you don't know that very simple science I would suggest that climate science is well beyond your remit "Sigh. So once again. Do we power vehicles using buckets of fuel? How is your "experiment" relevant to anything? Do we use fuel tanks in transportation? Are there fumes in fuel tanks and other enclosed spaces that can ignite with a spark? Do diesel and petrol fuel tanks ignite is some instances during accidents? Once ignited does it burn for a long time at intense temperatures? Was the Hindenburg using compressed liquid hydrogen as fuel or was it using it as a gas in big balloon cells for boyancy? Which system will be used to run engines and jets with? When a pressurised liquid hydrogen tank is punctured and if it ignores the dissipation rate is extremely high. Read some of the material and watch at the videos that I have already pointed you towards. Alternatively don't. Just repeat the same old stuff with no more information
Regardless, the point still remains that there are a large number of ways to decarbonise energy generation, including the use of hydrogen as a fuel. Is can be done quickly if there is the political will and the money is invested which is now being used for other, far less useful, things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes because rolls Royce and the hundreds off millions spent in R&D on jet engines looking for efficiency gains of 0.5% which makes them millions just don't want to make an engine 8% more efficient that any nitwit on this forum who doesn't even understand the basics of volatility can show us how to make?. Yea there just desperate to keep using kerosene for no other reason than there in a cabal with the petroleum industry (who also spend hundreds of millions in R&D on non hydrocarbon fuel). "Again, as I have said, it is a couple of years to be able to adapt existing engine designs to run on hydrogen. It requires a larger volume for the same energy so there will be a reduction in range until new aircraft are built that are optimised around the fuel. They use aviation fuel because they are already deeply invested in the technology and the global infrastructure is in place. You wouldn't change that model unless you had to due to the vast investment. There is a reason that means that we have to which is climate change. You really are out of your depth, but that doesn't usually stop you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And no diesel doesn't keep burning once ignited, it simply goes out unless it has a heat source or flame because it's working as an accelerant. "What rambling pedantic point are you trying to make? That if there is an accident in a vehicle running on petrol or diesel there is no fire risk? There are about 150 per day in the US. Why do you think that hydrogen would be worse? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes because rolls Royce and the hundreds off millions spent in R&D on jet engines looking for efficiency gains of 0.5% which makes them millions just don't want to make an engine 8% more efficient that any nitwit on this forum who doesn't even understand the basics of volatility can show us how to make?. Yea there just desperate to keep using kerosene for no other reason than there in a cabal with the petroleum industry (who also spend hundreds of millions in R&D on non hydrocarbon fuel).
Again, as I have said, it is a couple of years to be able to adapt existing engine designs to run on hydrogen. It requires a larger volume for the same energy so there will be a reduction in range until new aircraft are built that are optimised around the fuel.
They use aviation fuel because they are already deeply invested in the technology and the global infrastructure is in place. You wouldn't change that model unless you had to due to the vast investment.
There is a reason that means that we have to which is climate change.
You really are out of your depth, but that doesn't usually stop you ". So you want to spend trillions on infrastructure change to hydrogen despite admitting it's not even workable and may never be?. Jeees those boffins in R&D at rolls Royce just need your understanding of fuel. You write nonsense all day about stuff you hardly even grasp which is evident by your basic lack of knowledge on volatility, fuel and engines. Rivas built the first combustion engine in 1806 it ran on hydrogen and oxygen, it was the natural fuel as it instantaneously combusts (oxides) when put with Oxygen. It's not NEW technology | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Found this The last time CO2 levels were this high was during the Pliocene Epoch, 5.3 to 2.6 million years ago, when the Earth was several degrees warmer, sea levels were an estimated 50 feet higher than they are today, and forests grew as far north as the Arctic. “Earth was a very different place,” Rob Jackson, a professor of earth system science at Stanford University Doesn't explain why the planet was like this back then, no humans, cars, factories, planes, anything really yet now we're being told this time it is our fault
Did you stated which denial position you take?
Is it not clear to you that a change in temperature over thousands of years will have very different consequences to the same change in temperature happening over a few hundred?"I'm not stating any denial position. Asking a question does not automatically sit you in any form of denial position unless you have the misfortune to be talking to pompous argumentative people who like to do so for you
Also the evidence / statement I posted did not mention anything about the last high levels of co2 taking thousands of years to come into being either yet you want to "add" that nugget in first then compare it to recent times to try and "win" your point.
It is your style though so it's not really to be unexpected, is it.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway I'm out of this debate. Those that wish to deny are no different than those who wish to deny the difficulty of the problem." Where have I said that it was easy or cheap? Nowhere. What I said, very clearly and several times, was that the problem can be solved and can be solved quickly if we want to. You have just had your own seperate argument with yourself about something else which you have won. Well done | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not sure if this is covered if so what nr? Yes climate change is natural but humans are contributing to it since the industrial revolution, we should however be more worried with polution, remember that we are not killing the planet only ourselfs it will return to its normal self after a few cycles.We are contributing to it slightly* You think option 5 then? Really? That the climate has changed this rapidly before? How long is "a cycle" over which everything fixes itself?I would say it is more nr3 as to the slight effect of it is humans but it is nothing to worry about, my reply to the we are not killing the planet but only ourselfs is more to those that think that climate change is only caused by us. So you really don't think that the IPCC knows what it's talking about?No not really they are hired by the globslists to make people believe their version of it, the earth warms and cools on a range of different time scales, driven by different effects. Who are the "globalists"? Are they more powerful or "global" than the oil industry? The Earth has warmed and cooled before over thousands of years, not hundreds. I won't reply if you respond, not because I'm not interested but because I'd like to actually get a few more civilised responses to the question. Like yours. Thank you.It is a civilised response and it seems you cant accept others views than those who belive in climate change and yes they are one of the richest people on earth that decides and makes money on different things and it seems that the climate model is not fact. Actually, rather than taking offence you could reread what I wrote. I did find your response civilised and was hoping for more of the same before going into detail. However, as that no longer seems possible please do explain to me how climate science is not "fact" and how there is some global conspiracy that was so well funded and connected that it managed to overcome the global funding and political influence of the entire petrochemical industry?" I didnt take it as offence as I later read it wrong to quickly there but yes we have to agree to disagree as it will just go around in circles, climate change is happening but not as much as some think it is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Found this The last time CO2 levels were this high was during the Pliocene Epoch, 5.3 to 2.6 million years ago, when the Earth was several degrees warmer, sea levels were an estimated 50 feet higher than they are today, and forests grew as far north as the Arctic. “Earth was a very different place,” Rob Jackson, a professor of earth system science at Stanford University Doesn't explain why the planet was like this back then, no humans, cars, factories, planes, anything really yet now we're being told this time it is our fault
Did you stated which denial position you take?
Is it not clear to you that a change in temperature over thousands of years will have very different consequences to the same change in temperature happening over a few hundred?
I'm not stating any denial position.
Asking a question does not automatically sit you in any form of denial position unless you have the misfortune to be talking to pompous argumentative people who like to do so for you
Also the evidence / statement I posted did not mention anything about the last high levels of co2 taking thousands of years to come into being either yet you want to "add" that nugget in first then compare it to recent times to try and "win" your point.
It is your style though so it's not really to be unexpected, is it.
"So if you are not stating a denial position then you are accepting man made climate change as a significant problem that we can solve. That's an excellent position to understand the context of what you are saying. Wouldn't you agree? I assumed,that you knew that atmospheric CO2 levels started off at a high from the formation of the atmosphere. Under normal circumstances CO2 levels drop continually over time due to a number of natural processes unless specific events release them such as ice ages or volcanic activity. The easy explanation is below at GCSE level. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z82gng8/revision/5 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes because rolls Royce and the hundreds off millions spent in R&D on jet engines looking for efficiency gains of 0.5% which makes them millions just don't want to make an engine 8% more efficient that any nitwit on this forum who doesn't even understand the basics of volatility can show us how to make?. Yea there just desperate to keep using kerosene for no other reason than there in a cabal with the petroleum industry (who also spend hundreds of millions in R&D on non hydrocarbon fuel).
Again, as I have said, it is a couple of years to be able to adapt existing engine designs to run on hydrogen. It requires a larger volume for the same energy so there will be a reduction in range until new aircraft are built that are optimised around the fuel.
They use aviation fuel because they are already deeply invested in the technology and the global infrastructure is in place. You wouldn't change that model unless you had to due to the vast investment.
There is a reason that means that we have to which is climate change.
You really are out of your depth, but that doesn't usually stop you .
So you want to spend trillions on infrastructure change to hydrogen despite admitting it's not even workable and may never be?.
Jeees those boffins in R&D at rolls Royce just need your understanding of fuel.
You write nonsense all day about stuff you hardly even grasp which is evident by your basic lack of knowledge on volatility, fuel and engines.
Rivas built the first combustion engine in 1806 it ran on hydrogen and oxygen, it was the natural fuel as it instantaneously combusts (oxides) when put with Oxygen.
It's not NEW technology
"I would happily spend trillions on infrastructure change to prevent rapid climate change that will have a far worse financial, social and physical consequence. I have not "admitted" anything not being workable
The "boffins" are busy working on this problem. They could commercialise it faster with more investment. They don't need me and they certainly don't need you
Once again, just for amusement after you already claimed to have left:
Why is an incident with pressurised liquid hydrogen going to be worse than one with petrol, diesel or aviation fuel?
Then look up:
Toyota Mirai
Honda Clarity
Wright is hydrogen
HydroFLEX train
ZeroAvia
Rolls Royce Small Modular reactor
Hydrogen production would also be a method to store excess electricity generated from peak wind and solar power generation.
Nuclear power makes hydrogen production feasible at scale without CO2 emissions.
I've fed you all of the information that you need. Off you toddle | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes because rolls Royce and the hundreds off millions spent in R&D on jet engines looking for efficiency gains of 0.5% which makes them millions just don't want to make an engine 8% more efficient that any nitwit on this forum who doesn't even understand the basics of volatility can show us how to make?. Yea there just desperate to keep using kerosene for no other reason than there in a cabal with the petroleum industry (who also spend hundreds of millions in R&D on non hydrocarbon fuel).
Again, as I have said, it is a couple of years to be able to adapt existing engine designs to run on hydrogen. It requires a larger volume for the same energy so there will be a reduction in range until new aircraft are built that are optimised around the fuel.
They use aviation fuel because they are already deeply invested in the technology and the global infrastructure is in place. You wouldn't change that model unless you had to due to the vast investment.
There is a reason that means that we have to which is climate change.
You really are out of your depth, but that doesn't usually stop you .
So you want to spend trillions on infrastructure change to hydrogen despite admitting it's not even workable and may never be?.
Jeees those boffins in R&D at rolls Royce just need your understanding of fuel.
You write nonsense all day about stuff you hardly even grasp which is evident by your basic lack of knowledge on volatility, fuel and engines.
Rivas built the first combustion engine in 1806 it ran on hydrogen and oxygen, it was the natural fuel as it instantaneously combusts (oxides) when put with Oxygen.
It's not NEW technology
I would happily spend trillions on infrastructure change to prevent rapid climate change that will have a far worse financial, social and physical consequence.
I have not "admitted" anything not being workable
The "boffins" are busy working on this problem. They could commercialise it faster with more investment. They don't need me and they certainly don't need you
Once again, just for amusement after you already claimed to have left:
Why is an incident with pressurised liquid hydrogen going to be worse than one with petrol, diesel or aviation fuel?
Then look up:
Toyota Mirai
Honda Clarity
Wright is hydrogen
HydroFLEX train
ZeroAvia
Rolls Royce Small Modular reactor
Hydrogen production would also be a method to store excess electricity generated from peak wind and solar power generation.
Nuclear power makes hydrogen production feasible at scale without CO2 emissions.
I've fed you all of the information that you need. Off you toddle "Forgot this for your Google search too: Nikola One You're welcome | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What was the hindenburg filled with? You're impervious to information too aren't you?
Hindenburg contained hydrogen and diesel and was coated with a flammable sealent.
Why is that any more relevant than the cars burning on the side of the motorway?
Just out of interest.
It was a simple question you are unable to answer properly as you didn't like the answer. But so you do know; the generally accepted 'scientific' theory for the fire is a single spark igniting hydrogen. I'm out, ttfn
Your question:
"What was the hindenburg filled with?"
Is not answered by this?
"Hindenburg contained hydrogen and diesel and was coated with a flammable sealent."
What was the answer that you wanted?
Funnily enough, when hydrogen is being used as a fuel in the 21st century rather than a boyancy aid in the 20th century the technology and use case is rather different
If the Hindenburg had contained as much petrol or diesel or aviation fuel as the huge volumes of hydrogen hydrogen used for flight and was lit, do you think that there would not have been as much fire?
Well done on your Wiki search. Did you know that the generally accepted scientific theory for the use of a spark plug is to ignite petrol in an engine?
One again, just for simplicity's sake as that seems to be necessary:
Hydrogen is flammable. That's what makes it a fuel
Petrol, diesel and aviation fuel are flammable too.
As a liquid or pressurised gas hydrogen dissipates very, very much faster in a catastrophic incident. I've posted the search terms to explanations and videos.
You keep "believing" what ever you wish and if you wish to run away with your "final" word then please do so. Hopefully you'll feel better "knowing" that you "won" "Can't be arsed to read that, it is probably all bollocks anyway. I just pointed something out to people who seemed to think hydrogen wasn't highly volatile. Seems those people accept it now, we're all winners | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So if you are not stating a denial position then you are accepting man made climate change as a significant problem that we can solve. " As per you're wrong in your assumptions | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What was the hindenburg filled with? You're impervious to information too aren't you?
Hindenburg contained hydrogen and diesel and was coated with a flammable sealent.
Why is that any more relevant than the cars burning on the side of the motorway?
Just out of interest.
It was a simple question you are unable to answer properly as you didn't like the answer. But so you do know; the generally accepted 'scientific' theory for the fire is a single spark igniting hydrogen. I'm out, ttfn
Your question:
"What was the hindenburg filled with?"
Is not answered by this?
"Hindenburg contained hydrogen and diesel and was coated with a flammable sealent."
What was the answer that you wanted?
Funnily enough, when hydrogen is being used as a fuel in the 21st century rather than a boyancy aid in the 20th century the technology and use case is rather different
If the Hindenburg had contained as much petrol or diesel or aviation fuel as the huge volumes of hydrogen hydrogen used for flight and was lit, do you think that there would not have been as much fire?
Well done on your Wiki search. Did you know that the generally accepted scientific theory for the use of a spark plug is to ignite petrol in an engine?
One again, just for simplicity's sake as that seems to be necessary:
Hydrogen is flammable. That's what makes it a fuel
Petrol, diesel and aviation fuel are flammable too.
As a liquid or pressurised gas hydrogen dissipates very, very much faster in a catastrophic incident. I've posted the search terms to explanations and videos.
You keep "believing" what ever you wish and if you wish to run away with your "final" word then please do so. Hopefully you'll feel better "knowing" that you "won"
Can't be arsed to read that, it is probably all bollocks anyway. I just pointed something out to people who seemed to think hydrogen wasn't highly volatile. Seems those people accept it now, we're all winners "I thought that you were out but you came back to respond to something you didn't red so that you could maintain your ignorance. Well done winner | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So if you are not stating a denial position then you are accepting man made climate change as a significant problem that we can solve. As per you're wrong in your assumptions "So you spend time to write on a thread asking one thing and you can't even manage that before just writing random cryptic stuff and getting annoyed when people have to guess what you mean? Excellent | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://youtu.be/yVSGyvAl2AI Under which category would this crazy conspiracy theorist fall? " Fraudulent. This Tony Heller character also has several pseudonyms, spends a lot of his time claiming that data is just made up and has to retract some of those claims. He's never published a peer reviewed paper and has conducted no climate research. He is an electrical engineer and geologist. Seems to struggle with basic comprehension too
Why are his unqualified conclusions more reliable than those who actually do the work and analyse the results first hand?
What's so special about this one guy on YouTube?
I'd actually like to know what your position is as you have actually posted on this thread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So if you are not stating a denial position then you are accepting man made climate change as a significant problem that we can solve. As per you're wrong in your assumptions
So you spend time to write on a thread asking one thing and you can't even manage that before just writing random cryptic stuff and getting annoyed when people have to guess what you mean?
Excellent "I honestly believe you over think your replies so much in an attempt to come across so high and mighty, so far more informed as others that you end up loosing the plot of the conversation as you're trying to belittle others that you end up making yourself look a prized daft forum member | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So if you are not stating a denial position then you are accepting man made climate change as a significant problem that we can solve. As per you're wrong in your assumptions
So you spend time to write on a thread asking one thing and you can't even manage that before just writing random cryptic stuff and getting annoyed when people have to guess what you mean?
Excellent "1. You couldn't answer the question
2. I wouldn't call basic English cryptic 
3. I didn't get annoyed, especially by you
Have a lovely day in your la la land | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So if you are not stating a denial position then you are accepting man made climate change as a significant problem that we can solve. As per you're wrong in your assumptions
So you spend time to write on a thread asking one thing and you can't even manage that before just writing random cryptic stuff and getting annoyed when people have to guess what you mean?
Excellent
I honestly believe you over think your replies so much in an attempt to come across so high and mighty, so far more informed as others that you end up loosing the plot of the conversation as you're trying to belittle others that you end up making yourself look a prized daft forum member " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So if you are not stating a denial position then you are accepting man made climate change as a significant problem that we can solve. As per you're wrong in your assumptions
So you spend time to write on a thread asking one thing and you can't even manage that before just writing random cryptic stuff and getting annoyed when people have to guess what you mean?
Excellent
I honestly believe you over think your replies so much in an attempt to come across so high and mighty, so far more informed as others that you end up loosing the plot of the conversation as you're trying to belittle others that you end up making yourself look a prized daft forum member " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://youtu.be/yVSGyvAl2AI Under which category would this crazy conspiracy theorist fall? Fraudulent. This Tony Heller character also has several pseudonyms, spends a lot of his time claiming that data is just made up and has to retract some of those claims. He's never published a peer reviewed paper and has conducted no climate research. He is an electrical engineer and geologist. Seems to struggle with basic comprehension too
Why are his unqualified conclusions more reliable than those who actually do the work and analyse the results first hand?
What's so special about this one guy on YouTube?
I'd actually like to know what your position is as you have actually posted on this thread."Been on this planet for 50 years now and I remember from my early teens that the experts told us we only had X number of years before a catastrophic disaster would hit. Each and every time the predictions turned out to be totally inaccurate and life went on. The experts of yesterday were as sure of their predictions as the experts of today are. The science was settled back in the day also BTW as it is settled and unquestionable today. So to answer your poll/survey I would promote a new caregory.... Someone who has heard all the bullshit before, doesn't give a fuck, gets a tiny bit annoyed by alarmist (to the point where I mock and ridicule.... Never blow one's top or anything ), thinks the the finite number of years of being alive should be enjoyed as they happen, don't worry about future generations because (as provable science has shown) the people of tomorrow will evolve and adapt to the environment as time goes on. Make it category 69...because... Who doesn't like a good 69! To quote the famous green campaigner and champion of climate change (and muscle car, tank enthusiast, weapons collector, multi fossil fuel powered property owner and frequent flier) Arnold swartz.etc Hasta la vista baybeee... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://youtu.be/yVSGyvAl2AI Under which category would this crazy conspiracy theorist fall? Fraudulent. This Tony Heller character also has several pseudonyms, spends a lot of his time claiming that data is just made up and has to retract some of those claims. He's never published a peer reviewed paper and has conducted no climate research. He is an electrical engineer and geologist. Seems to struggle with basic comprehension too
Why are his unqualified conclusions more reliable than those who actually do the work and analyse the results first hand?
What's so special about this one guy on YouTube?
I'd actually like to know what your position is as you have actually posted on this thread.
Been on this planet for 50 years now and I remember from my early teens that the experts told us we only had X number of years before a catastrophic disaster would hit. Each and every time the predictions turned out to be totally inaccurate and life went on. The experts of yesterday were as sure of their predictions as the experts of today are. The science was settled back in the day also BTW as it is settled and unquestionable today.
So to answer your poll/survey I would promote a new caregory.... Someone who has heard all the bullshit before, doesn't give a fuck, gets a tiny bit annoyed by alarmist (to the point where I mock and ridicule.... Never blow one's top or anything ), thinks the the finite number of years of being alive should be enjoyed as they happen, don't worry about future generations because (as provable science has shown) the people of tomorrow will evolve and adapt to the environment as time goes on. Make it category 69...because... Who doesn't like a good 69!
To quote the famous green campaigner and champion of climate change (and muscle car, tank enthusiast, weapons collector, multi fossil fuel powered property owner and frequent flier) Arnold swartz.etc
Hasta la vista baybeee... "If you arent a 5 you are wrong We do need to switch to renewables anyway though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So if you are not stating a denial position then you are accepting man made climate change as a significant problem that we can solve. As per you're wrong in your assumptions
So you spend time to write on a thread asking one thing and you can't even manage that before just writing random cryptic stuff and getting annoyed when people have to guess what you mean?
Excellent
I honestly believe you over think your replies so much in an attempt to come across so high and mighty, so far more informed as others that you end up loosing the plot of the conversation as you're trying to belittle others that you end up making yourself look a prized daft forum member "**************** It's more attention seeking, mis-spelt Google-gleaning from Mr. Dishonourable the hot air 'dynamicist' Good entertainment though, especially when he wriggles about, slings insults and then vanishes, like a fart in the wind. Eva | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So if you are not stating a denial position then you are accepting man made climate change as a significant problem that we can solve. As per you're wrong in your assumptions
So you spend time to write on a thread asking one thing and you can't even manage that before just writing random cryptic stuff and getting annoyed when people have to guess what you mean?
Excellent
I honestly believe you over think your replies so much in an attempt to come across so high and mighty, so far more informed as others that you end up loosing the plot of the conversation as you're trying to belittle others that you end up making yourself look a prized daft forum member "I asked one question at the top of this thread. I even provided a range of possible answers and even tried to avoid the option of people being outraged about being forced to pick from a list that they didn't like by suggesting that they picked their own. Out of courtesy, it would be nice if people could answer the question in some way. Then I get questions which I answer as fully as possible. I also try to return to the initial question when it hasn't been answered because that is the purpose of the thread. It doesn't seem like too much to ask. Of you don't like what I'm writing then why post? It's a genuine question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So if you are not stating a denial position then you are accepting man made climate change as a significant problem that we can solve. As per you're wrong in your assumptions
So you spend time to write on a thread asking one thing and you can't even manage that before just writing random cryptic stuff and getting annoyed when people have to guess what you mean?
Excellent
1. You couldn't answer the question
2. I wouldn't call basic English cryptic
3. I didn't get annoyed, especially by you
Have a lovely day in your la la land "1. Scroll up and you will see my answer to the question, but in case that's too much effort: "I assumed,that you knew that atmospheric CO2 levels started off at a high from the formation of the atmosphere. Under normal circumstances CO2 levels drop continually over time due to a number of natural processes unless specific events release them such as ice ages or volcanic activity. The easy explanation is below at GCSE level. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z82gng8/revision/5" 2. Not actually answering the question that is question which is the entire point of the thread and then claiming that you accept climate change is an issue presents a a very difficult to decipher situation. It is cryptic. That is independent of the language. I am, as a consequence, forced to make assumptions. 3. If you are not annoyed and remain unconcerned then it is strange that you keep responding. Why are you posting on the thread if you have no interest in responding to it? Again, I am genuinely interested. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://youtu.be/yVSGyvAl2AI Under which category would this crazy conspiracy theorist fall? Fraudulent. This Tony Heller character also has several pseudonyms, spends a lot of his time claiming that data is just made up and has to retract some of those claims. He's never published a peer reviewed paper and has conducted no climate research. He is an electrical engineer and geologist. Seems to struggle with basic comprehension too
Why are his unqualified conclusions more reliable than those who actually do the work and analyse the results first hand?
What's so special about this one guy on YouTube?
I'd actually like to know what your position is as you have actually posted on this thread.
Been on this planet for 50 years now and I remember from my early teens that the experts told us we only had X number of years before a catastrophic disaster would hit. Each and every time the predictions turned out to be totally inaccurate and life went on. The experts of yesterday were as sure of their predictions as the experts of today are. The science was settled back in the day also BTW as it is settled and unquestionable today.
So to answer your poll/survey I would promote a new caregory.... Someone who has heard all the bullshit before, doesn't give a fuck, gets a tiny bit annoyed by alarmist (to the point where I mock and ridicule.... Never blow one's top or anything ), thinks the the finite number of years of being alive should be enjoyed as they happen, don't worry about future generations because (as provable science has shown) the people of tomorrow will evolve and adapt to the environment as time goes on. Make it category 69...because... Who doesn't like a good 69!
To quote the famous green campaigner and champion of climate change (and muscle car, tank enthusiast, weapons collector, multi fossil fuel powered property owner and frequent flier) Arnold swartz.etc
Hasta la vista baybeee... "You could just have written: "1. Climate change is not happening at all. The climate has not changed and is not changing. Nothing needs to be done." You chose not to though. Because exact predictions about the effects of the interactions of every element on the planet have not been perfectly correct then it just isn't happening at all. Just say that's what you believe then because trying to "mock and ridicule" using a random YouTube clip is not having that edfect. I asked why you believe this individual over everyone else? You have not said. I have not said anything "alarmist". I asked a question. The responses are instructive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So if you are not stating a denial position then you are accepting man made climate change as a significant problem that we can solve. As per you're wrong in your assumptions
So you spend time to write on a thread asking one thing and you can't even manage that before just writing random cryptic stuff and getting annoyed when people have to guess what you mean?
Excellent
I honestly believe you over think your replies so much in an attempt to come across so high and mighty, so far more informed as others that you end up loosing the plot of the conversation as you're trying to belittle others that you end up making yourself look a prized daft forum member
****************
It's more attention seeking, mis-spelt Google-gleaning from Mr. Dishonourable the hot air 'dynamicist'
Good entertainment though, especially when he wriggles about, slings insults and then vanishes, like a fart in the wind.
Eva "Why are you following me around? Why is it so important for you to try to say something offensive about me so regularly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If you arent a 5 you are wrong We do need to switch to renewables anyway though. " Skipping the right or wrong part I'm not sure I follow what you mean: "5. The climate is changing significantly but it is nearly all "natural" and humanity has barely any effect. Nothing needs to be done except dealing with the consequences." Are you saying that we are not affecting the climate but we should switch to renewables anyway? Is that to avoid oil conflicts or reduce pollution, or am I missing something? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What are you going to do with the results of your survey? Pass them to someone who gives a fuck or just feel smug and self-important because you talk down to other site users who question your garbage? You should join the IPCC because you talk as much bollocks as they do. Put me down for whichever option is the most catastrophic.....WE'RE ALL GUNNA DIE!!! "No. The reasons for why people don't believe in doing anything about climate change makes little sense to me. I actually asked a very neutral question in order to understand if the people who post on this forum actually think. You haven't really added anything other than some more insults. Why do that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Because I used to fuck guys like you in prison "That told me. Well done | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Because I used to fuck guys like you in prison
That told me.
Well done "Stay in your cell.... You'll thank me for it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Because I used to fuck guys like you in prison
That told me.
Well done
Stay in your cell.... You'll thank me for it"Gotcha. You are on a forum on a swingers site showing how tough you are. You have really proved it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
