'The Great Global Warming Swindle': Is Climate Change A Myth?

Sharon Hill said:
What Google University? Science via YouTube?

I'll stick to getting my info from worldwide scientific consensus instead.
Click to expand...
That video uses IPCC data to make the argument.
 
kesavaross said:
Another thing that has always bothered me. Why his global warning only causing bad effects? Listen to the doom mongers. They never say any good effects about global warming.
Click to expand...
The first good effect has been the increase in greenery in normally-dry parts of the world.
 
quoting myself from a decade+ ago:


ExxonMobil CEO says burning fossil fuels is warming the planet.

http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Environment/2012/06/28/exxon-fossil-fuel-adapt-climate/

direct link to speech http://www.cfr.org/united-states/new-north-american-energy-paradigm-reshaping-future/p28630
"So I'm not disputing that increasing CO2 emissions in the atmosphere is going to have an impact. It'll have a warming impact. "

"TILLERSON: Well, let me -- let me say that we have studied that issue and continue to study it as well. We are and have been long-time participants in the IPCC panels. We author many of the IPCC subcommittee papers, and we peer-review most of them."
 
To me, the point is that temperature increase is not attributable to CO2 - it is the other way around...and always has been.

Due to an ending/reduction of the Cenozoic Ice Age, Increase in temperature is inevitable and so also, is the increase in CO2, so drop the taxes and the guilt trips.

We can therefore expect among other changes around us, an increased volatility in our climates.

So stop the idea that agricultural stock - or for that matter - anything else is responsible for any increase in temperature, and at the same time, utilise any method for renewable energy sources, because we have 'The Science'.

As far as I'm concerned it's time for a Renaissance. YMMV.
 
I don’t think anyone is going to change their view, but anyway -

Have a look at this short critique of Climate The Movie at just 4 minutes. Durkin’s earlier ’Swindle' film apparently made several false claims.


[Brexit point removed — mods]

This site addresses most of the anti reasons if you’ve got the inclination to look.

https://skepticalscience.com/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The way I see it, when it comes to climate change, it might be happening with or without human aid; it might be speeding up or slowing down because of our actions. But isn't being 'eco-friendly', increasing 'clean energy' production, and reducing pollutants a good thing to do in of itself?
Or is this a case of "If I'm told to do something, I'm going to find reasons NOT to do it?" Like if you're banned from smoking, you take it up because 'no one is gonna tell me what to do!'
 
I didn’t bring the WHO into the conversation. But when presented with their report on climate change and health, I made the observation on their initial stance on covid which I found lacking to say the least. The point is that scientific consensus may be statistically skewed to a particular narrative - and this video explores the professional scientific mindset that follows the climate money and rejects the views that the sky isn’t falling. The WHO fumbled the ball - but don’t take my word for it…

Covid: Serious failures in WHO and global response, report finds​

Click to expand...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-57085505

This is an indicator that a large mass of doctors and scientists can be captured and the implications of this are valid in the climate argument. This is why I pointed at the WHO. Brexit has nothing to do with it.

Apart from the UK being first off the blocks to get a vaccine in circulation of course.
 
Analogue Boy said:
I didn’t bring the WHO into the conversation. But when presented with their report on climate change and health, I made the observation on their initial stance on covid which I found lacking to say the least. The point is that scientific consensus may be statistically skewed to a particular narrative - and this video explores the professional scientific mindset that follows the climate money and rejects the views that the sky isn’t falling. The WHO fumbled the ball - but don’t take my word for it…



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-57085505

This is an indicator that a large mass of doctors and scientists can be captured and the implications of this are valid in the climate argument. This is why I pointed at the WHO. Brexit has nothing to do with it.

Apart from the UK being first off the blocks to get a vaccine in circulation of course.
Click to expand...
Re Covid, with hindsight of course things could have been done differently.

That report says

The panel argued that the WHO's Emergency Committee should have declared the outbreak in China an international emergency a week earlier than it did.

It should have done so at its first meeting on 22 January last year [2020], the report said, instead of waiting until 30 January.

The month following the WHO's declaration was "lost" as countries failed to take appropriate measures to halt the spread of the virus.

The WHO was then hindered by its own regulations that travel restrictions should be a last resort, the panel said, adding that Europe and the US wasted the entire month of February and acted only when their hospitals began to fill up.

Panel co-chair and former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark said it was "critical to have an empowered WHO".

"If travel restrictions had been imposed more quickly, more widely, again that would have been a serious inhibition on the rapid transmission of the disease and that remains the same today," she added.
Click to expand...
Still off topic of Global Warming Swindle as far as I can see.

 
theo2.png


maximus otter
 
maximus otter said:
theo2.png


maximus otter
Click to expand...
I don't know about you but I would prefer as much energy to be produced by our own sustainable resources than importing millions of tons of hydro carbons from the most unstable places on earth, I don't even think about the green argument it just makes common sense well it does to me anyway
 
blessmycottonsocks said:
Surely the main point is:

Current population ≠ sustainable.
Click to expand...

We're approaching Forbidden Subjects...

I would argue that, even if we reduced our population to 50M (how? whom?), we couldn't maintain a modern economy and lifestyle on intermittent, unreliable energy sources.

Some people might be happy eating bugs and mycoprotein in a horse-and-buggy society, with (maybe) 8 hours' electricity per day. I wouldn't.

maximus otter
 
Ascalon said:
The UK is the 17th largest emitter of carbon in the ranked countries.
The average UK citizen is responsible for 5 tonnes of CO2 per year.

The average Sudanese person is responsible for 0.5 tonnes per year.

So, yeah, it would make a significant difference, and would be a welcome contribution because it's not as if the UK exists outside of the current biosphere, is it?
Click to expand...
But the 68,000 or so Sudanese people in the UK I bet will have a very similar CO2 footprint to UK citizens.
I understand that the UK is a popular destination for Sudanese ex-pats, presumably so they can grab a slice of the more profligate western lifestyle.
But is there any real value in comparing a shattered, war-torn, underdeveloped country like Sudan with the UK?
 
blessmycottonsocks said:
But the 68,000 or so Sudanese people in the UK I bet will have a very similar CO2 footprint to UK citizens.
I understand that the UK is a popular destination for Sudanese ex-pats, presumably so they can grab a slice of the more profligate western lifestyle.
But is there any real value in comparing a shattered, war-torn, underdeveloped country like Sudan with the UK?
Click to expand...
The comparison is a per head of population point.

It is to highlight that the UK's population, despite its geographical footprint, is a significant contributor to emissions and so cannot simply say they will have no effect.

Also, it is one planet, there is no where else.

Everyone has to do what they can. Furthermore, UK is home to the likes of BP and can exert significant influence on investment banking to divest from fossil fuels, so it is far from powerless when it comes to the climate fight.

To make out otherwise is to ignore the facts.
 
Ascalon said:
The comparison is a per head of population point.

It is to highlight that the UK's population, despite its geographical footprint, is a significant contributor to emissions and so cannot simply say they will have no effect.

Also, it is one planet, there is no where else.

Everyone has to do what they can. Furthermore, UK is home to the likes of BP and can exert significant influence on investment banking to divest from fossil fuels, so it is far from powerless when it comes to the climate fight.

To make out otherwise is to ignore the facts.
Click to expand...
Sure, but the 45 million or so Sudanese people are not inherently any more ecologically predisposed than the 74 million (?) UK citizens. They just have the misfortune to live in a shattered, failed state and would rather live in the UK given the chance.
There is no way though that people who are used to a western lifestyle would want to live in Sudan.
People have pretty well the same hopes and desires wherever they were born. The fundamental issue is that there are currently far too many of us consuming too much of the Earth's finite resources. I don't see any countries doing anything practical to limit their populations to a sustainable level, so I just hope we can somehow invent our way out of this pressing problem.
 
blessmycottonsocks said:
Sure, but the 45 million or so Sudanese people are not inherently any more ecologically predisposed than the 74 million (?) UK citizens. They just have the misfortune to live in a shattered, failed state and would rather live in the UK given the chance.
There is no way though that people who are used to a western lifestyle would want to live in Sudan.
People have pretty well the same hopes and desires wherever they were born. The fundamental issue is that there are currently far too many of us consuming too much of the Earth's finite resources. I don't see any countries doing anything practical to limit their populations to a sustainable level, so I just hope we can somehow invent our way out of this pressing problem.
Click to expand...
You are getting sidetracked.
It is not about population as such.
Agreed, we cannot consume as we are.
But to say that the UK would make no contribution to headline emissions figures is incorrect.

Developing nations such as Sudan, can be partnered to allow them to develop based on a mix of decarbonised core generation and a mix of renewables to provide a reliable, carbon free basis for a developing economy. It is not about spreading profligate lifestyles elsewhere, it is about everyone understanding and owning their own impact not whataboutery.

But to divorce the issue to saying one nation can do nothing is to abdicate responsibility.
 
maximus otter said:
Sustainable ≠ dependable.

Sustainable ≠ adequate.

Sustainable ≠ capable of feeding current population.

maximus otter
Click to expand...
I did not say all of our energy needs be met by Zero Carbon means there are going to be offsets however it's common sense (to me anyway) to generate as much energy as we can through sustainable means, it means that we are not as dependent on unstable supply

Interestingly enough there is a hell of a lot of financing of the anti Global Warming )or anti mitigation from it) from Oil Companies and Countries that depend on the export of Hydro Carbons you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize why they are willing to invest so much in the counter narrative, quite simply nations such as Russia and many of the Gulf States are wholly dependent on revenues generated by Oil and Gas
 
Frankly, the moderators haven't been paying much attention to this thread at all, but when our attention is drawn, we'd sooner not find off-topic statements about Brexit, Covid and immigration--some of which have just been removed.
 
Robbrent said:
I did not say all of our energy needs be met by Zero Carbon means there are going to be offsets however it's common sense (to me anyway) to generate as much energy as we can through sustainable means, it means that we are not as dependent on unstable supply

Interestingly enough there is a hell of a lot of financing of the anti Global Warming )or anti mitigation from it) from Oil Companies and Countries that depend on the export of Hydro Carbons you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize why they are willing to invest so much in the counter narrative, quite simply nations such as Russia and many of the Gulf States are wholly dependent on revenues generated by Oil and Gas
Click to expand...
No-one could disagree with that.
Is any form of energy production truly sustainable though?
Wind turbines require quite a lot of oil to lubricate them and I believe those rocking wave power units are the same. Solar panels are very inefficient and their production uses many non-sustainable resources. Nuclear power obviously comes with its own demons, as Chernobyl and Fukoshima demonstrated.
 
Ascalon said:
The UK is the 17th largest emitter of carbon in the ranked countries.
The average UK citizen is responsible for 5 tonnes of CO2 per year.

The average Sudanese person is responsible for 0.5 tonnes per year.

So, yeah, it would make a significant difference, and would be a welcome contribution because it's not as if the UK exists outside of the current biosphere, is it?
Click to expand...
We may be the 17th highest out of 206 but we only put out .88% of the worlds CO2 emissions. Unless countries like China who put out nearly a third of the world’s CO2 emissions get on board then anything we do is futile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top