Climate Change

[Stu's Brews]

This assumes that you have rationalised that CO2 is the source of climate change.

But if CO2 is not the source of climate change, then the whole project is a waste of taxpayers money, money that could be better spent actually cleaning the environment in projects that don't make billionaire oligarchs richer and actually benefit the planet.

I've covered this before in the electric car thread; based on the scientific evidence available at the current time it is fairly clear that greenhouse gases can be directly linked to rising global temperatures: https://www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproj...9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw==#link-3f71c155
And as I've also said on more than one occasion; CO2 emissions are used as an equivalency metric for comparing all of the greenhouse emissions from different sources: What are CO2 equivalents? | myclimate

 

[Stan's Brew]

I've covered this before in the electric car thread; based on the scientific evidence available at the current time it is fairly clear that greenhouse gases can be directly linked to rising global temperatures: https://www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproj...9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw==#link-3f71c155
And as I've also said on more than one occasion; CO2 emissions are used as an equivalency metric for comparing all of the greenhouse emissions from different sources: What are CO2 equivalents? | myclimate

The NYT is bought and paid for mainstream media that parrots the climate alarmist and global governance rhetoric with no balancing arguments against, just as with any other mainstream media, they all sing from the same hymn sheet provided by those with power and control with no alternative views proferred.

There are many academic voices that have provided a history of the climate change debate, showing the lack of study into natural cycles and temperature anomalies, the politicisation of the debate, the censorship of the debate and so on, so that only a mainstream view is presented to the public, the view that the rich and powerful want the plebs to believe, so the rich can gain from the opportunity. This happens all the time across a wide range of subjects, there's nothing new there.

But of course it keeps the plebs endlessly squabbling over the reasons for climate change and distracted from what the rich and powerful are up to.

So back to the point - stating that energy produced by so-called renewables is green is a fallacy as it ignores the vast amount of mining and environmental damage required to produce those renewables in the first place.

The whole green agenda set-up is a con on the tax payer to enrich the few and has nothing to do with climate change, the mainstream media is used to propagandise people into believing that they are using green energy who are wiilling to stump up the additional taxes imposed to implement the green agenda.

It wouldn't be so bad if the rich oligarchs and politicians were not so hypocritcal and altered their own lifestyles to meet their own rhetoric, but they don't - I don't believe a word of it and certainly not that man-made CO2 is the cause of climate change.

 

[Stu's Brews]

The NYT is bought and paid for mainstream media

Regardless of who published the article you can't argue with the basic laws of physics, which quite clearly show higher concentrations of CO2, NOx, Methane, etc. in the atmosphere can cause global temperatures to rise.

So back to the point - stating that energy produced by so-called renewables is green is a fallacy as it ignores the vast amount of mining and environmental damage required to produce those renewables in the first place.

As I said before, where do you think coal, the second most used energy source comes from? It certainly doesn't grow on trees.

Mining is obviously far from great but surely it is better to mine for something that has a low emissions impact when used to generate energy?

I don't believe a word of it and certainly not that man-made CO2 is the cause of climate change.

Then what is it then? Give us one scientifically justifiable cause for the rapid climate change currently occuring that is not linked to greenhouse gases.

 

[Stan's Brew]

Regardless of who published the article you can't argue with the basic laws of physics, which quite clearly show higher concentrations of CO2, NOx, Methane, etc. in the atmosphere can cause global temperatures to rise.


As I said before, where do you think coal, the second most used energy source comes from? It certainly doesn't grow on trees.

Mining is obviously far from great but surely it is better to mine for something that has a low emissions impact when used to generate energy?


Then what is it then? Give us one scientifically justifiable cause for the rapid climate change currently occuring that is not linked to greenhouse gases.

If I refer you to post #93 inteview with Dr Lindzen, if you take a listen, he presents quite a good first hand account of the history of what happened to the science all the way from the 1960's, the mainstream view is not convincing when presented with this kind of evidence, plus University of East Anglia email scandal where scientists were colluding to manipulate the data and a whole host of other scientists and experts that can provide alternative views that are at odds with government and billionaire sponsored narrative.

 

[Rodcx500z]

Lesson,

One of my friends told me about a powerful lesson in her daughter's school class recently. They're learning about the Salem Witch Trials, and their teacher told them they were going to play a game.
"I'm going to come around and whisper to each of you whether you're a witch or a regular person. Your goal is to build the largest group possible that does NOT have a witch in it. At the end, any group found to include a witch gets a failing grade."
The teens dove into grilling each other. One fairly large group formed, but most of the students broke into small, exclusive groups, turning away anyone they thought gave off even a hint of guilt.
"Okay," the teacher said. "You've got your groups. Time to find out which ones fail. All witches, please raise your hands."
No one raised a hand.
The kids were confused and told the teacher he'd messed up the game. "Did I? Was anyone in Salem an actual witch? Or did everyone just believe what they'd been told?"
And that is how you teach kids how easy it is to divide a community.
Shunning, scapegoating and dividing destroys far more than they protect. There's plenty of it going around.
Do not allow the ruling elite to divide and destroy us. We must remain united against those who would do so.

 

[Stu's Brews]

If I refer you to post #93 inteview with Dr Lindzen, if you take a listen, he presents quite a good first hand account of the history of what happened to the science all the way from the 1960's, the mainstream view is not convincing when presented with this kind of evidence, plus University of East Anglia email scandal where scientists were colluding to manipulate the data and a whole host of other scientists and experts that can provide alternative views that are at odds with government and billionaire sponsored narrative.

Sorry, but I don't have two hours to watch that and from what you describe it doesn't seem to answer my question anyway.

 

[Bernie]

As I said before, where do you think coal, the second most used energy source comes from? It certainly doesn't grow on trees.

Coal does grow on trees.

 

[Stu's Brews]

Coal does grow on trees.

Yep, fair cop, if you go back a few million years then you can see some coal in the form of trees.

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/ho...when dead,or brownish-black sedimentary rock.

 

[Kerby]

Sorry, but I don't have two hours to watch that and from what you describe it doesn't seem to answer my question anyway.

You’ve not missed much, an old man rambling on. Incidentally this website article written by the man himself seems to contradict a huge amount of what he says in the video.

https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm

 

[Stu's Brews]

Just going back to the point that 'CO2 doesn't cause climate change'; here is a very simple experiment for school children that shows the physics at play:

https://www.steampoweredfamily.com/the-greenhouse-effect-experiment/
And another example from NASA:

https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/files/archive/activities/ts1hiac1.pdf
It's not a theory, it's a scientific fact that higher concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere cause global temperatures to rise.

 

[Bernie]

Lesson,

One of my friends told me about a powerful lesson in her daughter's school class recently. They're learning about the Salem Witch Trials, and their teacher told them they were going to play a game.
"I'm going to come around and whisper to each of you whether you're a witch or a regular person. Your goal is to build the largest group possible that does NOT have a witch in it. At the end, any group found to include a witch gets a failing grade."
The teens dove into grilling each other. One fairly large group formed, but most of the students broke into small, exclusive groups, turning away anyone they thought gave off even a hint of guilt.
"Okay," the teacher said. "You've got your groups. Time to find out which ones fail. All witches, please raise your hands."
No one raised a hand.
The kids were confused and told the teacher he'd messed up the game. "Did I? Was anyone in Salem an actual witch? Or did everyone just believe what they'd been told?"
And that is how you teach kids how easy it is to divide a community.
Shunning, scapegoating and dividing destroys far more than they protect. There's plenty of it going around.
Do not allow the ruling elite to divide and destroy us. We must remain united against those who would do so.

I presume the teacher was playing the role of the global elite telling everyone what the truth is.

 

[Stan's Brew]

Sorry, but I don't have two hours to watch that and from what you describe it doesn't seem to answer my question anyway.

I suspected as much, it indicates a lack of research on your behalf, you are disingenous in your approach, if you can't be bothered to read/listen/watch to information that you asked for, why bother asking for it in the first place? - Let me answer that last part, you just need a hook to attack anyone/anything presented that disagrees with your point of view without even understanding the underlying information.

 

[Stu's Brews]

I suspected as much, it indicates a lack of research on your behalf, you are disingenous in your approach, if you can't be bothered to read/listen/watch to information that you asked for, why bother asking for it in the first place? - Let me answer that last part, you just need a hook to attack anyone/anything presented that disagrees with your point of view without even understanding the underlying information.

That is slanderous and I strongly object to it. I'm busy and don't have two hours to spare on my Sunday morning. That really isn't unusual.

FWIW, I did read up on Dr. Lindzen and see he has proposed alternative theories for climate change some twenty years ago that have been widely discredited as inaccurate.

 

[Stan's Brew]

You’ve not missed much, an old man rambling on. Incidentally this website article written by the man himself seems to contradict a huge amount of what he says in the video.

https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm

You appear to be confused the website article is written by Skeptical Science providing responses to Lindzens points.

Try reading what you present a little more carefully before passing comment, it might make sense then.

 

[Stan's Brew]

That is slanderous and I strongly object to it. I'm busy and don't have two hours to spare on my Sunday morning. That really isn't unusual.

I might forgive you if you said you were brewing!

 

[Stu's Brews]

I might forgive you if you said you were brewing!

Thanks but I don't need your forgiveness for any way I choose to spend my Sunday.

 

[Kerby]

Where did you cut and past this from? Quite an interesting sociological learning tool. Shame about the last paragraph of conspiracy theorist, new world order, foil hat wearing bull.

 

[Kerby]

You appear to be confused the website article is written by Skeptical Science providing responses to Lindzens points.

Try reading what you present a little more carefully before passing comment, it might make sense then.

Yup you’re right, but you don’t need to be unpleasant about it.

 

[Stan's Brew]

That is slanderous and I strongly object to it. I'm busy and don't have two hours to spare on my Sunday morning. That really isn't unusual.

FWIW, I did read up on Dr. Lindzen and see he has proposed alternative theories for climate change some twenty years ago that have been widely discredited as inaccurate.

I didn't ask you to watch it on a Sunday morning in the first place!

If you'd care to look at my original post #93 that I originally referred you to, you will clearly see that I spelled out the reasons why Lindzen has a different view on global warming, that goes quite a way to answering your question:

"He has contributed to the development of theories for the Hadley Circulation, hydrodynamic instability theory, internal gravity waves, atmospheric tides, and the quasi-biennial oscillation of the stratosphere. His current research is focused on climate sensitivity, the role of cirrus clouds in climate, and the determination of the tropics-to-pole temperature difference."

You can lead a horse to water ...

Is the reason that people who believe in government and media sponsored narratives will not look at alternative views because the so-called fact-checking websites have done their research for them? It really is lazy research if this is the case and it appears to be so.

 

[Stan's Brew]

Whatever Greta is, she is not good at answering unscripted pointy questions: