-
@Winger said in Climate Change:
I can't help myself.
Its 40 year's too late. And if there's heavy snowfall next year this will also prove climate change. The climate scientists are on a win win now.
And no one's arguing that the weather and climate doesn't change over time. It whether it caused by cows farting and burping. Or changes in the sun.
I vote for the sun. You the cows etc. I don't have an issue. Believe what you want. Except - let those that believe pay for it all. Not me
The curious question is how one comes up with their beliefs at all and how humans have the ability to think theirs are correct and everyone else is wrong. It is how religion, conspiracy theories all thrive.
You clearly don't believe the methane from millions of farm animals has any impact on the warming climate and it's not worth worrying about. Millions of people and thousands of scientists hold different views, who is correct?
Ultimately for me, I trust pilots can fly planes when I travel, I have no idea how electricity works but I trust the engineers that make it work. When my heart stopped I trusts the doctors, and in regards to climate I trust the scientists who spend their life doing experiments and following the scientific method.
I think it's important that people like yourself challenge science and ask these important questions, that is how science works.
I think an important question to ask is how could your mind be changed to believe humans and agriculture are causing the planet to warm? Could any amount of science change your mind or are your beliefs(however you formed your belief) so strong nothing could ever challenge it.
-
@Winger said in Climate Change:
And here's one brave man that is against the consensus. But he's taken a big risk. There's massive money at stake here (many trillions of $s) so his reputation could be destroyed
- In the previous post you said there was no consensus. Now you say there is one, are there two Wingers?
- How much money does the fossil fuel industry make again? Or are they only doing this for the good of humanity? If only these poor people could be subsidised:
-
Climate change and Covid are just examples of fear mongering. Its about control, taxing the shit out of hard working people and bigger government. It is amazing how many people are suckered in to the hype. The world is not going to end because of increasing temperatures. Bush and forest fires are going to happen, especially in CA because there is no forest management and there are hardly any timber companies around to thin the vast acres. Imagine the anxiety and loss of years someone has to live with from worrying about this stuff.
-
@chimoaus said in Climate Change:
@Winger said in Climate Change:
I can't help myself.
Its 40 year's too late. And if there's heavy snowfall next year this will also prove climate change. The climate scientists are on a win win now.
And no one's arguing that the weather and climate doesn't change over time. It whether it caused by cows farting and burping. Or changes in the sun.
I vote for the sun. You the cows etc. I don't have an issue. Believe what you want. Except - let those that believe pay for it all. Not me
The curious question is how one comes up with their beliefs at all and how humans have the ability to think theirs are correct and everyone not everyone. Not even close else is wrong. It is how religion religion isn't a good example. Here too lots are brainwashed esp in the past, conspiracy theories all thrive.
You clearly don't believe the methane from millions of farm animals has any impact on the warming climate and it's not worth worrying about. Millions of people and thousands of scientists hold different views, who is correct? Money's winning at present. But, things will change soon as the cost of these policies become clearer.
Ultimately for me, I trust pilots can fly planes when I travel, I have no idea how electricity works but I trust the engineers that make it work. When my heart stopped I trusts the doctors, and in regards to climate I trust the scientists who spend their life doing experiments and following the scientific method. This sums up your flawed thinking. Like trusting a crock because his brother is a good man
I think it's important that people like yourself challenge science and ask these important questions, that is how science works. Its supposed to work. But if a young scientists steps out of line look out
I think an important question to ask is how could your mind be changed to believe humans and agriculture are causing the planet to warm? Could any amount of science change your mind or are your beliefs(however you formed your belief) so strong nothing could ever challenge it.
Easy Prove the science. CO2 supposedly create energy; where 100 units of energy are fed in from the sun and 300 units come out due to this magical back radiation process. Set up an experiment with a CO2 filled container. Feed in 100 units of energy and get 300 units out. Publish all the results with full documentation so it can be verified
-
@Winger said in Climate Change:
@chimoaus said in Climate Change:
@Winger said in Climate Change:
I can't help myself.
Its 40 year's too late. And if there's heavy snowfall next year this will also prove climate change. The climate scientists are on a win win now.
And no one's arguing that the weather and climate doesn't change over time. It whether it caused by cows farting and burping. Or changes in the sun.
I vote for the sun. You the cows etc. I don't have an issue. Believe what you want. Except - let those that believe pay for it all. Not me
The curious question is how one comes up with their beliefs at all and how humans have the ability to think theirs are correct and everyone not everyone. Not even close else is wrong. It is how religion religion isn't a good example. Here too lots are brainwashed esp in the past, conspiracy theories all thrive.
You clearly don't believe the methane from millions of farm animals has any impact on the warming climate and it's not worth worrying about. Millions of people and thousands of scientists hold different views, who is correct? Money's winning at present. But, things will change soon as the cost of these policies become clearer.
Ultimately for me, I trust pilots can fly planes when I travel, I have no idea how electricity works but I trust the engineers that make it work. When my heart stopped I trusts the doctors, and in regards to climate I trust the scientists who spend their life doing experiments and following the scientific method. This sums up your flawed thinking. Like trusting a crock because his brother is a good man
I think it's important that people like yourself challenge science and ask these important questions, that is how science works. Its supposed to work. But if a young scientists steps out of line look out
I think an important question to ask is how could your mind be changed to believe humans and agriculture are causing the planet to warm? Could any amount of science change your mind or are your beliefs(however you formed your belief) so strong nothing could ever challenge it.
Easy Prove the science. CO2 supposedly create energy; where 100 units of energy are fed in from the sun and 300 units come out due to this magical back radiation process. Set up an experiment with a CO2 filled container. Feed in 100 units of energy and get 300 units out. Publish all the results with full documentation so it can be verified
FFS. In a thread filled with some really dumb shit, that is literally the stupidest thing I've ever read. Every... single... sentence.
Let alone the complete lack of understanding which is obviously the foundation for that. I know nearly understand your point of view... you believe in THAT. Wow.
I know I should address it point by point, but how the fuck do you even start?
Another thread to add to the Ignore list. -
@Kruse said in Climate Change:
@Winger said in Climate Change:
@chimoaus said in Climate Change:
@Winger said in Climate Change:
I can't help myself.
Its 40 year's too late. And if there's heavy snowfall next year this will also prove climate change. The climate scientists are on a win win now.
And no one's arguing that the weather and climate doesn't change over time. It whether it caused by cows farting and burping. Or changes in the sun.
I vote for the sun. You the cows etc. I don't have an issue. Believe what you want. Except - let those that believe pay for it all. Not me
The curious question is how one comes up with their beliefs at all and how humans have the ability to think theirs are correct and everyone not everyone. Not even close else is wrong. It is how religion religion isn't a good example. Here too lots are brainwashed esp in the past, conspiracy theories all thrive.
You clearly don't believe the methane from millions of farm animals has any impact on the warming climate and it's not worth worrying about. Millions of people and thousands of scientists hold different views, who is correct? Money's winning at present. But, things will change soon as the cost of these policies become clearer.
Ultimately for me, I trust pilots can fly planes when I travel, I have no idea how electricity works but I trust the engineers that make it work. When my heart stopped I trusts the doctors, and in regards to climate I trust the scientists who spend their life doing experiments and following the scientific method. This sums up your flawed thinking. Like trusting a crock because his brother is a good man
I think it's important that people like yourself challenge science and ask these important questions, that is how science works. Its supposed to work. But if a young scientists steps out of line look out
I think an important question to ask is how could your mind be changed to believe humans and agriculture are causing the planet to warm? Could any amount of science change your mind or are your beliefs(however you formed your belief) so strong nothing could ever challenge it.
Easy Prove the science. CO2 supposedly create energy; where 100 units of energy are fed in from the sun and 300 units come out due to this magical back radiation process. Set up an experiment with a CO2 filled container. Feed in 100 units of energy and get 300 units out. Publish all the results with full documentation so it can be verified
FFS. In a thread filled with some really dumb shit, that is literally the stupidest thing I've ever read. Every... single... sentence.
Let alone the complete lack of understanding which is obviously the foundation for that. I know nearly understand your point of view... you believe in THAT. Wow.
I know I should address it point by point, but how the fuck do you even start?
Another thread to add to the Ignore list.Strange post. And its just a rugby forum.
-
Anyone in this sector?
Rantings of a denier or is wind full of hot air?
-
@MiketheSnow He's telling the truth, but in a typical government hating way. It's very boring, and predictable.
None of the points he raises are unsolvable.
The real issue with Net Zero is electrical production vs electrical storage. Between wind, sun & tidal, I do believe there is sufficient energy to power the UK. But I don't believe there is without storage for peak times.
The dude basically read this Guardian article and put his own Government whinge on top of the existing Guardian government whinge.
-
@Nevorian said in Climate Change:
Climate crisis or No climate crisis the reality is that fossil fuels are a finite resource so we need to be developing alternatives anyway
But we should be doing this based on real science. Not the crap that passes as science today in the West. Esp relating to man-made climate change.
-
@MiketheSnow said in Climate Change:
Anyone in this sector?
Rantings of a denier or is wind full of hot air?
what does he mean roads and drives have to be dug up to "swap over to electricity"...im assuming its just a poor wording and houses generally dont have gas lighting
@Winger said in Climate Change:
@Nevorian said in Climate Change:
Climate crisis or No climate crisis the reality is that fossil fuels are a finite resource so we need to be developing alternatives anyway
But we should be doing this based on real science. Not the crap that passes as science today in the West. Esp relating to man-made climate change.
your mixing up climate change and fossil fuels being a finite resource. I believe in climate change...hell, i believe its a fact and not something to be believed or not...but thats a moot point when your just talking about developing a different energy sources and importantly ones that are renewable or hell even ones that countries can own themselves like wind and solar and not being reliant of buying from other countries
@Nevorian literally says regardless of anything to do with climate change
its like those that mix up pollution and climate change....we can say improving air quality is in itself a good thing without thinking that will have and effect on "climate change"
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Climate Change:
I believe in climate change...hell, i believe its a fact and not something to be believed or not...
I do too. Everyone does. But the question is what causes it. Cows farting and burping. Or a tiny increase in CO2. Or changes in the Sun.
I back the Sun.
your mixing up climate change and fossil fuels being a finite resource
Its not just about energy. What about all the other uses? And finite for 5 years. or 500 years. We need real science. Not bullshit that is more more about money and control now
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Climate Change:
@Winger but the point was, despite the thread title @Nevorian wasn't talking about climate change but alternative energy sources
As were others further back in the thread.
There will always be two sides at least to any science debate and both may even have credible evidence.
-
your mixing up climate change and fossil fuels being a finite resource. I believe in climate change...hell, i believe its a fact and not something to be believed or not...but thats a moot point when your just talking about developing a different energy sources and importantly ones that are renewable or hell even ones that countries can own themselves like wind and solar and not being reliant of buying from other countries
Except that energy has to be stored, at times?, and you are most likely buying that battery/storage device or energy harvester from China so there will be dependence there.
Just wondering, since people conclude fossil fuels are a finite resource, what is the assumed supply of materials/precious metals needed to make storage devices? Obviously it's not infinite and is there any toxicity created once they have been exhausted? I am really green on this topic as I tend to run the opposite direction of those who think the world is going to burn up if we continue to use fossil fuels. I am pretty happy with fossil fuels except for the increased prices caused by those who want to reduce supply and tax the shit out of it.
-
@MajorRage said in Climate Change:
@MiketheSnow He's telling the truth, but in a typical government hating way. It's very boring, and predictable.
None of the points he raises are unsolvable.
The real issue with Net Zero is electrical production vs electrical storage. Between wind, sun & tidal, I do believe there is sufficient energy to power the UK. But I don't believe there is without storage for peak times.
The dude basically read this Guardian article and put his own Government whinge on top of the existing Guardian government whinge.
Only just found this about wind generation. Completely agree with @MajorRage all solvable and yes those are good alternatives. Storage definitely an issue but again solvable.
The biggest issue is that everyone wants governments to do it in the first place. Macro generation, storage, and distribution is costly and wasteful. The whole system needs to be approached on a micro scale. Governments can play their part with subsidies (we really need to address some of the ways our whole societies operate wrt transport - power or otherwise) but if I stay on topic with power, it is far more efficient done as close to the user site as possible and can also be tailored to the local met conditions. The grid can still be used for surplus distribution where local conditions are over supplying.
I'm considering a 3kw vertical axis turbine to charge my battery because we still have wind at night and there is often a decent breeze on cloudy days to supplement the solar system. I have largely been forced into this as our grid is so unreliable (utter shit actually). If we get a decent breeze a tree somewhere will touch a wire a few times and we great brown or blackout. I could change that from a negative to a positive with a turbine on site. Electricity is getting so expensive that self-production and storage is becoming financially viable with a reasonable payback period.
Disclaimer - I have no idea who funds "statista". They may be vulnerable (bribed) to (by) green lobbyists and "contributions" as much as politicians are from oil and gas companies.
-
@Snowy said in Climate Change:
as much as politicians are from oil and gas companies.
The same Politicians who are right behind all this Green energy.
The answer for energy is likely 4th generation mini nukes. So, we are unlikely to go there. Rather stick with useless wind turbines. That may be polluting the atmosphere doing production and also during their lifetime. And are an ugly eyesore when their life is up
-
There's something that just doesn't sit quite right with me from a logical perspective in regards to climate change - less so "the science" and moreso they way about it's been fixed.
If it was so horribly dire as it's been made out to be as literally it's a crisis and were all going to die then we'd be building nuclear power plants all over the place as realistically this is our only low carbon option that offers a reliable baseload and delivers the amount of energy required to replace fossil fuel. Yet we are not.
It's kinda like me going to the doctor and them saying - well your going to die in 10 years time, here's a solution you can have right now that has these side effects or you can sit there slowly dying and wait for better technology to come along.
How many of us would take the dying slowly option while hoping something better comes along? I sure as hell wouldn't.
Yet this is apparently what we've decided to do.
Baffling.
Climate Change