Leaderboard

Congratulations! Textbook stuff. Let's run through it. "Deniers" - great start. Shoehorned that into the first sentence ie anyone who looks at something from a different angle to you or has a different opinion is a "denier". Then the made-up (as usual) amazement that people are pointing out..., well what are they pointing out? You ignore the elephant in the room and despite looking very closely I can't see the word China anywhere in your post. But where's "Daily Mail" - you used it last time but missed a trick here. That killer riposte is taking a break I see. I tell you what amazes me - that anyone in their right mind can assert that the intermittent renewable energy sources of wind and solar (not nuclear, but that's going nowhere fast at present) can in any way be a substitute for fossil fuels. You can't run any industry, especially heavy industry, on an intermittent energy source, much of society's needs will depend on a high carbon-footprint manufacture and installation technology which supplies low and fickle electricity, and these solar panels and wind turbines will last 15-20 years then be chucked away. Fridges, ovens, building heating - all required reliable energy. And you won't be able to drive anywhere if last night wasn't windy enough. Or is every household going to have a massive toxic Chinese-produced battery the size of a chest of drawers to give stability of energy supply? Eco-friendly or what! But don't worry, massive improvements in renewables technology will come along and save us just in the nick of time - we just have to take your word for that, but even your illusory massive improvements won't change the whole flawed concept of renewables I'm afraid. Nuclear excepted again, yet 30 years of non-investment into nuclear has buried that one for the foreseeable future. But here comes Bill Gates, nuclear plant manufacturer par excellence......he's got an idea you say? "I'd rather be proved wrong on climate" - no you wouldn't and you're quite prepared to sacrifice our economy and standard of living in a pointless gesture to give you the satisfaction that "at least we tried". so hang the consequences, so long as your media and government primed conscience is satisfied. That's the important thing of course. If any of the politicans or XR idiots actually really believed in the link between CO2 and global warming, wouldn't they be banging down China and India's doors to express their terror at what the world's major polluters were ramping up. That they couldn't care less says it all.

You choose to slightly misunderstand the vast majority of scientists, ( they don't understand or agree with each other 100%) and think that the opposite of your actions has to involve conspiracy theories.... This doesn't make sense. Not all change is caused by Man!!!! That's where the problem lies- this mistake generated the idiocy of thinking it's easy to reverse global warming, going around telling everyone what to do. There are positive feedback loops involved that we don't yet understand. There are negative feedback loops involved that we don't yet understand. The natural forces involved are beyond our comprehension. We are a passenger in, not the driver of, this runaway vehicle. Sure, we've had a play with the steering wheel, and we are increasingly being asked to do so, but we have no control over the brakes....

Indeed so, and if you happen to be even slightly at odds with/or question the mainstream narrative, you're labelled a climate change "denier". In fact, we know the global temperature has gone up - that is hard quantitative fact. The debate lies in what precisely has caused it. Co2 is just one of a whole range of possibilities. But among the mainstream scientific community, only one is allowed any headroom, that relating to Co2. Nothing else: which to my way of thinking is manifestly unintelligent. The temperatures have been rising for a lot longer than is ever discussed. Glaciers formed in the ice age have been in continuous retreat for centuries. I've got a book first published in 1943 called, oddly enough "The Weather". It's a Penguin book by G.H.Kimble. In it there is a chapter called "Is our climate changing?" I wish I could reproduce it all here, but I obviously can't. In the chapter there are headings such as "When Greenland was greener" (11th century) and "The vineyards of England". The author mentions that in Scandinavia and the British Isles rises of the order of 1 to 2 degrees F (so about 1 degree C) occurred between about 1843 and 1943. At Washington DC during the 20 year period ending 1892, there was a total of 354 days with freezing temperatures (overnight minimums). For the 20 year period ending in 1933, that had dropped to 237. In Oslo the temperature rose nearly 4 degrees F, so about 2 degrees C between about 1850 and 1943. In Spitsbergen the average December temperature in 1943, was more than 10 degrees F higher then it was in 1913. Sadly we are confronted by completely closed minds who literally attribute all warming to Co2 emissions.

Hmm....read again. We have affected the climate, and changed it. This is obvious. OK? What is ridiculous and arrogant is to assert that ALL climate change is down to us. Forces far greater than we can really imagine have been fighting each other for millions of years, the result being a constantly shifting climate. All we have done is added a warming bias to this, but who knows what the climate would have done anyway? Was it about to go into a warmer period, which we have now exaggerated, or was it about to enter a cooler period, which we have stopped?

The climate has varied enormously over the millennia. It's not that we have affected the climate that offends me. It's the arrogance that asserts that _all_ climate change is all down to Man's activities that offends me, because this clearly is not true.

"never was a truer word spoken" referred to the "we'd better get used to it" rather than "What we've experienced the last week is not a freak event".