So that's a no then. So by your rules, you should no longer comment. The person he's posted is qualified to PhD level with many years active experience, which kills your argument a bit further too even if you disagree or agree with him. Also, by your standards, Thunberg should certainly not be referenced. She avoided school.
He could be an elephant trainer it would still be as relevant as your comment all he did was posted a video of somebody else and what they said
I’d say I’m more qualified to speak on it than Dr Eli David is. And given what he has put forward on Covid, Climate Change and vaccines, I would back myself a thousand times over. The good thing about my rules is, I get to change them. Especially when somebody is a fraud and sharing harmful social media videos about things they know aren’t true. Of course, posting Covid misinformation would have nothing to do with him being on the board of an alternative healthcare company. No conflict of interest there, no siree. And the Venn Diagram of Covid misinformation and climate denial are always a perfect circle.
I didn’t make a comment, I said that he is full of **** and posts things that are as such. If you’d like me to address what he said, I’d be happy to.
There are some associations between the spread of communicable diseases and this thread involving potential vectors of transfer, but they are for elsewhere. Basically you've just shown that you are rather pompous and hypocritical. Instead of trying to chuck mud at someone that posted a video of another person, why not try commenting on the facts behind what the person in the video is claiming?
what you said was a comment I'LL SAY IT AGAIN - he didnt say anything, he quoted what Patrick Moore said and posted a video of him saying it by all means comment on what Patrick Moore said but please remember he has a PhD in Forest Biology You can discuss Dr David all you want but the tweet didnt contain his thoughts
Gladly, if there were any facts in what he said. But I will do a break down of what he said and why it's not true. 1. "There is no direct scientific evidence that Carbon Dioxide is responsible for any of the slight warming that has occurred during the last 300 years." - Yes, yes there is. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased around 40% in the last 350 years. If you want the simplified version, around 350 years ago, the industrial revolution began, which saw humans burning fossil fuels en masse non stop. Before then, the CO2 present in the Earth was naturally cycling between flora and fauna, the ocean and the atmosphere. We discovered that organic based fuels such as oil could be refined and burned, however the understanding of what really happened to these gases was minimal until very recently, though the knowledge and importance of CO2 towards life on Earth was evident in the 1800s. The Earth does go through periods of warming and cooling and always has because that's how planets with atmospheres work. But, as I'm sure Patrick Moore is aware, the natural cycle of greenhouse gases formed through geological processes allowed life to thrive while in balance. The minute we started upsetting that balance, we began to affect the composition of the atmosphere and as is well documented, the balance of life is incredibly delicate, if one species goes extinct, it has massive ramifications across that food chain. It is important to note that there are other anthropogenic materials such as methane, carbon monoxide and nitrous oxides being released too, but these are nowhere near as much because livestock don't create as much methane as people do CO2 by burning stuff. 2. "If there were such a proof, it would have been written down." It has. A lot. By literally hundreds of scientists throughout the last few decades. It's why scientific consensus is that CO2 IS contributing hugely to climate change. Here is a link to the Royal Society's updated paper from 2020. Climate Change: Evidence & Causes 2020 (royalsociety.org). The Royal Society is the oldest and foremost scientific institution in the world, and this paper was completed in conjunction with the National Academy of Sciences in the USA. I'm sure Patrick will have fun debunking everything in there. 3. "The contention that human emissions are now the dominant influence on climate is simply a hypothesis rather than a universally accepted scientific theory." In 2005, the leading scientific academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, co-signed a declaration that the evidence for climate change had become too great to ignore and that rapid and decisive action was required. Now, whether or not action was taken is down to politics and not science. Science identifies the issue, it is up to the countries to do the solving. As we've seen, not enough has been done by anybody to a degree where we're improving. 4. "It is therefore correct to be sceptical of those who express certainty that the science is settled and the debate is over." Well. Hang on. The debate about whether humans cause climate change is over, like I said, the world's leading scientists from eleven separate nations agreed that the evidence showed that to be the case. The phrase "the science is settled" is complete bollocks, it makes no sense in this context, nobody has said that the "science is settled", just that it's no longer the case that the evidence for climate change can be ignored. It's there, it's recorded, it's verified. What isn't settled is how we fix it and the models for just how bad things are going to get in the short to medium term. Those are things people like our children are going to need to know in the immediate future. 5. "There is certainty beyond reasonable doubt that CO2 is the building block for all life on Earth and without its presence in sufficient quantities this would be a dead planet." Nobody is stating otherwise, we all know that. However, I will point to Venus, which is absolutely chock full of CO2 (its atmosphere is composed of 95% CO2) and is a hell scape that will instantly kill you if you set foot on it. We're not anywhere near that position, but the idea that lots of CO2 in a planet's atmosphere is totally harmless is utter ****. 6. "Our children and our publics are taught that CO2 is a toxic pollutant" No they aren't. They're taught that it's bad for humans if there's too much CO2 in the atmosphere, which is scientifically correct. 7. "[CO2] will destroy life and bring civilisation to its knees." CO2 on its own will not do that. The warming of the Earth through greenhouse gases IS destroying life, it just hasn't quite got to humans yet on an industrial scale. Which is probably why the majority of humans don't care. Humans are classically reactionary, we don't respond to **** happening until it's already underway. Whenever we try to prevent something, the same barriers pop up because it means people actually have to do something about it, it might mean they have to change their lives, or the way they go about doing stuff. They don't want to, why should they? What's the point? If reducing CO2 levels meant somehow averting a meteor hitting the Earth in 2 years, there'd be people right up to one minute to midnight saying "it could still miss us, what are you worrying about?" People need to see it with their own eyes, or, to put it more succinctly, it needs to impact THEM before they do anything about it. There's always room for debate, always, but when I hear things like that ^^being posted (read the comments underneath, people genuinely think he's being honest), nah. You can sit there and tell me you think the Earth is flat, but you're wrong. We can have fun going through the theories and the Youtube videos, but it doesn't change the shape of the Earth. I'm sure somewhere there's a video of somebody trying to explain that 1 + 8 = 7. Sure, okay, show me how you reached that conclusion, but the answer is 9. Just because you have an opinion doesn't make your conclusion valid. There's always an opposing opinion, or a hypothesis, or a claim that's made that people will cling to because it either matches their preconceived ideas about the universe around them or that it's easier than coping with the harsh reality of just how knackered we really are. And yeah, it ruins it. It ruins the fun of difference and potential changes. That's why people go for this kind of guff, because it makes them feel like they have these wonderful insights into a hidden knowledge that nobody else has access to. People don't want to face boring reality, or hard work, or scary scientists warning them about stuff because it's ****ing boring compared to a George Soros controlled planet where everybody is a sheep except a select few enlightened social media profiles, or an alien taking a piss next to a tree. The world is boring, and ****, and scientific and mathematical and complex and people just don't have time for that in the world of scrolling social media, news stories that people see, get angry about and forget the next day. TLDR; Patrick Moore is talking out his arse. And **** Dr Eli David too.
His tweet is his thoughts, that's what a retweet is, it's an endorsement of the post, saying "this is what I think".
By your rules, as I've just reposted your words, so you would claim it's what I think. Do you see how silly and pointless that argument of yours is, and how just like your previous attempts at dismissal, it adds nothing to the conversations? A bit like the opinionated guff and sweeping assumptions you added at the end of what appears to be a reasoned post. I'll try to cut out your bile and have a read through before I comment. I also have to watch the video in question, which I hadn't done before, as it was sidetracked by people trying to play the man rather than the ball. I do wish the education system had people that could teach critical thinking so that students could learn to discuss facts, rather than being bombarded by emotional nonsense and the preachers own bias. It leaves conversations hanging, as this reply has just done, but I do think this habit some have of diverting to ad hominem (yup, I know) helps nobody. I'm sure you'd melt if I simply dismissed your views as your training isn't in atmospheric science, but on teaching little kids how to read Janet and John. I wouldn't, but I hope you see the point.
And therein lies the big problem with log burners, they are easy to abuse, modern gas combi boilers burn at well over 90% efficiency but because there’s millions of them, someone in power who may have an interest in heat pumps have decided they are worse than log burners, I remember the smogs in the 1960’s at school, so bad you could not see more than a few yards, if gas boilers do get banned, this will happen again, people installing any type of burner to keep warm. And yet bigger and bigger cruise ships get built, the largest moving things on earth which are the biggest polluters, a shocking stat came up that Europes 218 cruise ships emitted more sulphur oxides, (cancer causing) than 1 billion cars, and a cruise ship is a plaything, a totally unnecessary form of transport, now they should be scrapped. Cue fat bastards who love eating themselves to death on these floating E. coli cesspits, having a go at me.
The biggest problem we have in the UK, and indeed worldwide is that rich people don’t give a **** about the environment but impose ever stringent taxes and laws on the populace, Sunak and his ilk swan about in helicopters, private jets, indeed private airliners, super yachts, look at the US Presidents, two ****ing massive jumbo jets to fly one person, four massive Hercules type planes to carry dozens of massive stupid armour plated cars along with him, hundreds of secret service agents, a plane full of press, for what, look at me I’ve got the biggest dick. Banning the UK’s gas boilers will make a tiny dent in the saving of carbon dioxide but rich ****ers will still do as they like with no consequence.
What they should be doing is banning them and then replacing them with something else, and paying for that replacement. They could do a lot more, they just don’t want to. For several pound shaped reasons.
So many of the 'solutions' are more likely to create other issues that could potentially be worse than those they are designed to replace, and a part of that is because they don't fully understand the problems despite what ends up in the reports or the hysterics that the media and others try to generate. At least the current head of UN Climate and IPPC seems to be trying to promote a more level headed commentary.
I’m on one now, as someone who has worked as a heating engineer/plumber for many years, the biggest single thing for heat efficiency in the home is insulation, yet house builders in this country do not build houses with enough insulation, and even though solar panels are fairly ****, they are cheap to buy, a panel is about £200 you need 15 to power a kettle, yet the cost to install is many thousands retrofitted, but not so in a new build, but add a storage battery for around £10k then if you can get enough sun, not likely in Hull, but you can power a house for half a day when it’s fully charged. If’s and buts of course, but it’s easily done, so why isn’t it? profits that’s why, when councils built their own houses in the 50’s they were well built and cheap to build because there were no shareholders to satisfy, half the price of a new build is profit, there is no will in government to build council houses because there is no kick back. A new house should be able run it’s self on less than 10kw of power a day if it’s built right, a quarter less than they do now, a huge saving on power, but then the energy companies would increase the cost to astronomical prices, why, because they are run for profit. A circle of greed runs this country and until it is stopped then we all pay the price and emissions will keep rising because the rich don’t give a ****, goodnight all.
It was a bank holiday in 1960's February's when you weren't on one. The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
Can someone from the climate change denial side of the debate please tell us all A) how you intend to ensure that the planet doesn’t overheat to the extent that it affects the ability of humans to exist broadly as they do now? B) how you intend to bring down domestic energy prices, and provide a secure energy supply that isn’t dependent on potentially corrupt and dangerous regimes? and C) how you intend to clean up our air? answers on a postcard. if you cannot answer the above, please explain why on earth you are on this thread reading this?
A part of that issue is down to almost cyclops like focus on co2 and the way it is counted (it's not measured at a local level) as there is little to no incentive for council's to build greener houses as it doesn't really impact much on the levels as they are counted. Similarly, there is a lot of competition to encourage developers to council areas, and not much central support for planners to push for greener buildings. Above that, as Canute demonstrated, man does not control nature to any real extent, which makes much of the arguments offered moot, as the climate will change, the issue is when and what form will it take. Buildings and development needs to have a strategic approach to look for ways to build mitigation in for these changes. The biggest losers in this are the less developed areas of the world, as they won't see the health and other benefits industrialisation and fossil fuels made for the west, but they'll certainly feel the impact of a harsher economy. Despite probably having more access to solar sources, they still have among the lowest energy availability globally. You only have to measure life spans pre and post indutrialsation to see those benefits.
