Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Lizzie Zoom on 23 August 2019, 22:54:20
-
There you go Varche, I have started the thread Rod should have done when he veered well off the HS2 topic to make other political statements! ;)
Another major escalation on costs is climate fraud where it need to be 'carbon neutral' & lined with thousands of noisy bird slaughterers so at the bottom of the next carbon cycle we drop below 120ppm & all C3 plants and almost all animal life dies, swell. Hard-left tree huggers are happy to destroy life on earth to get rid of their hated capitalist Western civilization & most animal life as collateral damage is acceptable. They have never forgiven us for defeating their Marxist ideology in 1991 with the fall of the Soviet Union & China seeing their only survival path for their Communism was by bolting capitalism on to the side of it. Climate fraud where I have been digging on the history of this was started in the 1990's but a group of UN Canadian environmentalists where the West is based on abundant, cheap, reliable, energy. A clever new front by the hard-left to prove they had lost a Marxist battle but by no means lost their subversive war.
The rich play holier-than-though by offsetting their carbon footprint while the many plebs pick up the real costs like HS2 cost escalation, expensive, rare, unreliable energy & the steady deindustrialization of the West where India & China are happy with their 550 coal fired power stations under construction to become the industrial powerhouses of the 21st century as we descend to 3rd world status industrially & culturally.
Spending on bad 'white elephant' projects that will never come near to paying for themselves, just weakens a country & it should IMO be scrapped.
Does that rant Rod make you feel better and more important? Such ramblings again from someone, who obviously is intelligent, but who feels the need for highly charged, emotive words, whilst spewing twisted and distorted political viewpoints that simply ignore the facts of Climate Change and how man must try and do everything he can to stop the melt down of our environment. >:(
You are obviously designing these posts for other Forums (political?) and posting the same on here. You are again coming across as someone very twisted in thought, just like Hitler was when leading mass rallies and spouting off about evil, greedy, money grabbing Jewish capitalists, along with the sub-human Communist people of Russia. You are using the language akin to the infamous "Red under ever bed" period of US history. Your highly charged language is in the same mould, and I find offensive. Why can you not just stick to your simple viewpoints with standard English and forms of metaphorical discriptions?
The fact that MAN is causing dramatic damage to the planet, with a current example being the Brizlian rainforests being burnt down, seems to escape you. Some good people, including politicians and many distinguished scientists of all disciplines, are trying to stop this vandalism by publishing their findings and facts, whilst in fact pressurising the likes of China to reverse their use of coal - which actually you have stated in a previous post causes no problems to humans or the environment and the U.K. should still be using the stuff! A point I argued with you, but conveniently ignored. Brazil is currently being also highly criticised for what is a human led destructive act, for various reasons, in the Environmentally key rainforests. Have you commented in simple, non-inflatory language on that? No! ::) ::)
-
I think you lost the moral high ground when you accused him of being twisted, and then immediately compared him to Hitler. ::) ;D
-
I think you lost the moral high ground when you accused him of being twisted, and then immediately compared him to Hitler. ::) ;D
What's the expression?
Ah yes, ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Another climate change
punch up discussion thread with added politics ::)
maybe add some religion in for good measure ;D
-
I think you lost the moral high ground when you accused him of being twisted, and then immediately compared him to Hitler. ::) ;D
Really?! :o :o ;D ;D ;D
Because that is how is coming across in his attacks, with inflammatory language, on everyone who do not conform with his political points of view. Just read all his posts."Climate Fraud", "noisy bird slaughterers", "Marxist battles", "rich play holier-than-though", "we descend to 3rd world status industrially & culturally" - what the F is all that about? Why not just use non combatant language for this car forum, and not that used by the politically extreme journalists of the media, or, as I said, a dictator preaching to a mass political gathering of the faithful? No those expressions are designed to inflame and make his statements more important than they really are, although they are originally meant for his other forum preachings as he has admitted, for his mass audience - just like Hitler!! :D :D :D ;)
Of course all of us are allowed our view points, but it is the manner in which we express them which on a car forum should be straightforward. We can all be challenged as well, as no doubt I will on this thread, but we all normally answer those challenges. Rod has not when I, and others like recently Jimmy944, have questioned his points, given in expressive language, like his desire to return Britain to the 1950's coal dependant society as though it had any merits, whilst ignoring all scientific evidence, let alone knowledge of what those conditions were like in the practical form for us then.
There, I have now had my rant!! ::) ::) :P :P :P :P
Back to normal discussions on the OOF - if that is possible!! ;D ;D ;D :P :P
Now for the religious bit Dave........................ ;D ;D ;D ;)
-
Thank God for that ::)
-
I would just live for today. Tomorrow doesn't look very appealing.
-
I think you lost the moral high ground when you accused him of being twisted, and then immediately compared him to Hitler. ::) ;D
Hitler wasn't all bad , look at the Autobahns .
-
I think you lost the moral high ground when you accused him of being twisted, and then immediately compared him to Hitler. ::) ;D
Hitler wasn't all bad , look at the Autobahns .
Built in the main by the Yanks as an efficient way of getting to Moscow should the need arise ;)
-
I think you lost the moral high ground when you accused him of being twisted, and then immediately compared him to Hitler. ::) ;D
Hitler wasn't all bad , look at the Autobahns .
Yep ;D :y
For those interested the following link gives a great summary of what are the true facts of Hitler's Germany up to 1939, that I have had to read many books on to get to those points. So as an easy read:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zpq9p39/revision/1
It certainly was not ALL bad, but what a price the German people, the Jews, and the rest of the world paid for all that!! :'( :'(
And I certainly have never agreed with the National Socialist policy towards women!! >:( >:( :P :P
But the policy of getting all the lazy, snowflake, youngsters into National Service is very appealing ! ::) ::) ;D ;D :y
-
I think you lost the moral high ground when you accused him of being twisted, and then immediately compared him to Hitler. ::) ;D
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
-
I think you lost the moral high ground when you accused him of being twisted, and then immediately compared him to Hitler. ::) ;D
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Not somebody else who has to use Wikipedia to explain themselves ::) ;D ;)
Try reading history then you will understand why I made the comparison with someone who brings a political agenda, and audience, along with the insulting rhetoric to match to the OOF :-* :y
-
"...simply ignore the facts of Climate Change and how man must try and do everything he can to stop the melt down of our environment>"
A little reading for you Ms. Zoom. :y
https://summit.news/2019/07/11/new-finnish-study-finds-no-evidence-for-man-made-climate-change/ (https://summit.news/2019/07/11/new-finnish-study-finds-no-evidence-for-man-made-climate-change/)
Published July 2019
Co-authored by Jyrki Kauppinen, Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, Finland.
-
I think you lost the moral high ground when you accused him of being twisted, and then immediately compared him to Hitler. ::) ;D
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Not somebody else who has to use Wikipedia to explain themselves ::) ;D ;)
Try reading history then you will understand why I made the comparison with someone who brings a political agenda, and audience, along with the insulting rhetoric to match to the OOF :-* :y
Have a read of the link and report back... ;D
-
"...simply ignore the facts of Climate Change and how man must try and do everything he can to stop the melt down of our environment>"
A little reading for you Ms. Zoom. :y
https://summit.news/2019/07/11/new-finnish-study-finds-no-evidence-for-man-made-climate-change/ (https://summit.news/2019/07/11/new-finnish-study-finds-no-evidence-for-man-made-climate-change/)
Published July 2019
Co-authored by Jyrki Kauppinen, Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, Finland.
I assume you know that the Turku paper hasn't been subject to peer review and is basically tabloid fodder?
-
A better place to start might be with some of the largest meta studies done on the subject. Ie, studies which analyse the results of peer reviewed studies into the subject at hand.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/climate-change-consensus-07042018/ (https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/climate-change-consensus-07042018/)
While you will probably never find an area of science (or indeed anything else) where views are 100% aligned, the consensus is pretty overwhelming in this case.
I'm fairly sure I could find studies which haven't been peer reviewed in support of: the efficacy of homeopathy or a link between MMR and Autism, but that doesn't mean that there is scope for reasonable doubt on the subject. Id be surprised if (m)any peer reviewed studies exist that come to the same conclusion.
-
"...simply ignore the facts of Climate Change and how man must try and do everything he can to stop the melt down of our environment>"
A little reading for you Ms. Zoom. :y
https://summit.news/2019/07/11/new-finnish-study-finds-no-evidence-for-man-made-climate-change/ (https://summit.news/2019/07/11/new-finnish-study-finds-no-evidence-for-man-made-climate-change/)
Published July 2019
Co-authored by Jyrki Kauppinen, Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, Finland.
I assume you know that the Turku paper hasn't been subject to peer review and is basically tabloid fodder?
Tabloid fodder? ::) ::)
Jyrki K. Kauppinen was born in Finland in 1944. He was received his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1967, his Master of Science degree in Physics in1968, and the Ph.D. degree in 1975 from the university of Oulu. He started his academic career at the University of Oulu working in many positions from assistant to professor. The National Research Council of Canada appointed him a research fellow in 1980. Dr. Kauppinen was elected as senior research fellow at the Academy of Finland in 1981. He has also worked at the Technical Research Center of Finland and the Metrology Research Institute of Helsinki University of Technology. In 1990 he was a visiting scientist at the National Research Council of Canada and at Kansas State University. At present he is a professor of Physics at the University of Turku (since 1986), a docent in Physics at the University of Oulu, and a docent in Optical Measurement Technology at Aalto University in Espoo.
Who to believe? A leading scientist with huge experience in these areas or a poster on a car forum.?
-
"...simply ignore the facts of Climate Change and how man must try and do everything he can to stop the melt down of our environment>"
A little reading for you Ms. Zoom. :y
https://summit.news/2019/07/11/new-finnish-study-finds-no-evidence-for-man-made-climate-change/ (https://summit.news/2019/07/11/new-finnish-study-finds-no-evidence-for-man-made-climate-change/)
Published July 2019
Co-authored by Jyrki Kauppinen, Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, Finland.
I assume you know that the Turku paper hasn't been subject to peer review and is basically tabloid fodder?
Tabloid fodder? ::) ::)
Jyrki K. Kauppinen was born in Finland in 1944. He was received his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1967, his Master of Science degree in Physics in1968, and the Ph.D. degree in 1975 from the university of Oulu. He started his academic career at the University of Oulu working in many positions from assistant to professor. The National Research Council of Canada appointed him a research fellow in 1980. Dr. Kauppinen was elected as senior research fellow at the Academy of Finland in 1981. He has also worked at the Technical Research Center of Finland and the Metrology Research Institute of Helsinki University of Technology. In 1990 he was a visiting scientist at the National Research Council of Canada and at Kansas State University. At present he is a professor of Physics at the University of Turku (since 1986), a docent in Physics at the University of Oulu, and a docent in Optical Measurement Technology at Aalto University in Espoo.
Who to believe? A leading scientist with huge experience in these areas or a poster on a car forum.?
Surely that would depend on which car forum?
-
When scientific papers are peer reviewed, to me its meaningless unless you look into the peers who are doing the reviewing, and where their research funding comes from. When you follow the money, you will often find that they are being paid by people with an agenda.
Conversely, those in the scientific community who wont simply go along with the accepted wisdom (something any scientist worth their name, should never do), cant get any funding for their research ,and even have their careers ruined.
Ask David Bellamy or Jonny Ball. Hardly eminent scientists, but when they publicly said they were sceptical about mmcc, they disappeared from TV screens and had a vile campaign against them, to stop them from being allowed to speak to children in schools.
The message was "these men aren't safe around children". With the very obvious implications that come with that, forever in peoples minds, when their names are mentioned. People who do that to other people to stop their opinions from being heard, have something to hide, and I could never trust them.
-
"...simply ignore the facts of Climate Change and how man must try and do everything he can to stop the melt down of our environment>"
A little reading for you Ms. Zoom. :y
https://summit.news/2019/07/11/new-finnish-study-finds-no-evidence-for-man-made-climate-change/ (https://summit.news/2019/07/11/new-finnish-study-finds-no-evidence-for-man-made-climate-change/)
Published July 2019
Co-authored by Jyrki Kauppinen, Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, Finland.
I assume you know that the Turku paper hasn't been subject to peer review and is basically tabloid fodder?
Tabloid fodder? ::) ::)
Jyrki K. Kauppinen was born in Finland in 1944. He was received his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1967, his Master of Science degree in Physics in1968, and the Ph.D. degree in 1975 from the university of Oulu. He started his academic career at the University of Oulu working in many positions from assistant to professor. The National Research Council of Canada appointed him a research fellow in 1980. Dr. Kauppinen was elected as senior research fellow at the Academy of Finland in 1981. He has also worked at the Technical Research Center of Finland and the Metrology Research Institute of Helsinki University of Technology. In 1990 he was a visiting scientist at the National Research Council of Canada and at Kansas State University. At present he is a professor of Physics at the University of Turku (since 1986), a docent in Physics at the University of Oulu, and a docent in Optical Measurement Technology at Aalto University in Espoo.
Who to believe? A leading scientist with huge experience in these areas or a poster on a car forum.?
;D
Calm down dear!
I'm not asking you to believe me, or anyone for that matter. I'm asking you to consider the weight of evidence (which is one of the things that meta studies are for after all) rather than Cherry-picking a study, that hasn't been subject to peer review, meaning its methods and conclusions have not been appropriately debated / criticised by those that actually know ie other scientists in the field. Without appropriate criticism, neither you nor I know whether the methods, sample sizes and (probably most importantly) statistical methods are the most appropriate ones to use, or whether they were picked expressly to drive a particular result. If nothing else, it might be worth considering why people seem to be having a hard time finding the underlying data that this study claims to have used, but doesn't accurately reference. ::)
To glibly drop that study out as "a little reading" for someone as though it adds weight to the debate is pretty naive.
-
When scientific papers are peer reviewed, to me its meaningless unless you look into the peers who are doing the reviewing, and where their research funding comes from. When you follow the money, you will often find that they are being paid by people with an agenda.
Do you believe that climate change is a special case in this regard? The reason I ask is that, is if you believe that science as a whole is driven by funding rather than by actual scientific endeavour, then why were the studies which demonstrated links between cancer and smoking, or Thalidomide and birth defects not appropriately suppressed, or countered by many more paid-for studies that showed no link?
Taking climate change specifically, if, as you suggest, portions of the scientific community are in the pay of pro climate change organisations, who would these organisations / people be that they can generate a 99% majority of studies coming out in their favour over all the organisations who would like to demonstrate that man-made climate change does not exist?
If I follow the money on man-made climate change, its all on the other side of the fence. Petro-chemical companies, mining companies, fossil fuel electricity generators, middle east kingdoms that rely on oil for their economies, big corporations such as Ford, GM, boeing, airbus, the big investment banks and pension funds that invest in these companies. I don't know who you would put up against these companies that would pay such large sums of money to fund the pro-man-made climate change research?
-
"...simply ignore the facts of Climate Change and how man must try and do everything he can to stop the melt down of our environment>"
A little reading for you Ms. Zoom. :y
https://summit.news/2019/07/11/new-finnish-study-finds-no-evidence-for-man-made-climate-change/ (https://summit.news/2019/07/11/new-finnish-study-finds-no-evidence-for-man-made-climate-change/)
Published July 2019
Co-authored by Jyrki Kauppinen, Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, Finland.
Yeah, yeah, it is always possible to find reports of this type, but the wider scientific world agrees that man HAS contributed to Climate Change, that is not denying the underlying fact that the earth's climate does change naturally. If you take the wider picture, reading the scientifically and academically verified and recognised charts and graphs that are out there for the people willing to understand WE have all been responsible for damaging our planet, then you will understand more. :D
I will finish with the question: so you think the fires in Brazil are not, in the main, man made and are, as we write, not seriously damaging our environment for decades to come? ??? ???
-
"...simply ignore the facts of Climate Change and how man must try and do everything he can to stop the melt down of our environment>"
A little reading for you Ms. Zoom. :y
https://summit.news/2019/07/11/new-finnish-study-finds-no-evidence-for-man-made-climate-change/ (https://summit.news/2019/07/11/new-finnish-study-finds-no-evidence-for-man-made-climate-change/)
Published July 2019
Co-authored by Jyrki Kauppinen, Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, Finland.
I assume you know that the Turku paper hasn't been subject to peer review and is basically tabloid fodder?
Tabloid fodder? ::) ::)
Jyrki K. Kauppinen was born in Finland in 1944. He was received his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1967, his Master of Science degree in Physics in1968, and the Ph.D. degree in 1975 from the university of Oulu. He started his academic career at the University of Oulu working in many positions from assistant to professor. The National Research Council of Canada appointed him a research fellow in 1980. Dr. Kauppinen was elected as senior research fellow at the Academy of Finland in 1981. He has also worked at the Technical Research Center of Finland and the Metrology Research Institute of Helsinki University of Technology. In 1990 he was a visiting scientist at the National Research Council of Canada and at Kansas State University. At present he is a professor of Physics at the University of Turku (since 1986), a docent in Physics at the University of Oulu, and a docent in Optical Measurement Technology at Aalto University in Espoo.
Who to believe? A leading scientist with huge experience in these areas or a poster on a car forum.?
;D
Calm down dear!
I'm not asking you to believe me, or anyone for that matter. I'm asking you to consider the weight of evidence (which is one of the things that meta studies are for after all) rather than Cherry-picking a study, that hasn't been subject to peer review, meaning its methods and conclusions have not been appropriately debated / criticised by those that actually know ie other scientists in the field. Without appropriate criticism, neither you nor I know whether the methods, sample sizes and (probably most importantly) statistical methods are the most appropriate ones to use, or whether they were picked expressly to drive a particular result. If nothing else, it might be worth considering why people seem to be having a hard time finding the underlying data that this study claims to have used, but doesn't accurately reference. ::)
To glibly drop that study out as "a little reading" for someone as though it adds weight to the debate is pretty naive.
That as well!! 8) 8) :D :D :D :y :y
-
"...simply ignore the facts of Climate Change and how man must try and do everything he can to stop the melt down of our environment>"
A little reading for you Ms. Zoom. :y
https://summit.news/2019/07/11/new-finnish-study-finds-no-evidence-for-man-made-climate-change/ (https://summit.news/2019/07/11/new-finnish-study-finds-no-evidence-for-man-made-climate-change/)
Published July 2019
Co-authored by Jyrki Kauppinen, Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, Finland.
I assume you know that the Turku paper hasn't been subject to peer review and is basically tabloid fodder?
Tabloid fodder? ::) ::)
Jyrki K. Kauppinen was born in Finland in 1944. He was received his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1967, his Master of Science degree in Physics in1968, and the Ph.D. degree in 1975 from the university of Oulu. He started his academic career at the University of Oulu working in many positions from assistant to professor. The National Research Council of Canada appointed him a research fellow in 1980. Dr. Kauppinen was elected as senior research fellow at the Academy of Finland in 1981. He has also worked at the Technical Research Center of Finland and the Metrology Research Institute of Helsinki University of Technology. In 1990 he was a visiting scientist at the National Research Council of Canada and at Kansas State University. At present he is a professor of Physics at the University of Turku (since 1986), a docent in Physics at the University of Oulu, and a docent in Optical Measurement Technology at Aalto University in Espoo.
Who to believe? A leading scientist with huge experience in these areas or a poster on a car forum.?
I’m with Dr Kauppinen :y
-
Companies only exist for one purpose... Making money. Even non profit companies have to make money, as their profit is used to fund their philanthropic interests rather that the shareholders specifically.
Anyone can be paid to say anything, whether it's the bloke on the Cillit Bang adverts, Philip Schofield or Barack Obama... The only question being how much to say what and in what context... ;)
-
Companies only exist for one purpose... Making money. Even non profit companies have to make money, as their profit is used to fund their philanthropic interests rather that the shareholders specifically.
Anyone can be paid to say anything, whether it's the bloke on the Cillit Bang adverts, Philip Schofield or Barack Obama... The only question being how much to say what and in what context... ;)
Absolutely right DG! 8) 8) :y :y
Nothing I was allowed to do in business did not have the crucial profit element attached. The question I was asked by the Directors, and I asked of my subordinates when we wanted to spend money was "Is it beneficial for the business and either creates extra profits or protects the existing profit stream?" If the answer was "No", that was the end of the matter! :D ;)
-
Companies only exist for one purpose... Making money. Even non profit companies have to make money, as their profit is used to fund their philanthropic interests rather that the shareholders specifically.
Anyone can be paid to say anything, whether it's the bloke on the Cillit Bang adverts, Philip Schofield or Barack Obama... The only question being how much to say what and in what context... ;)
I agree, (with certain caveats, because 'making money' isn't always as black and white an aim as it sounds), which is why, when there is so much money on the fossil fuel side of the table, I can't see why there would be an overwhelming majority linking human action to climate change.
It makes no sense, if nothing else the numbers would be closer, 50/50 or 60/40 maybe?
-
1. the wider scientific world agrees that man HAS contributed to Climate Change
2. I will finish with the question: so you think the fires in Brazil are not, in the main, man made and are, as we write, not seriously damaging our environment for decades to come? ??? ???
1. The climate debate has been taken over by leftie charlatans, who have seen it as an opportunity to redistribute wealth and change the Western economic structure.
Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 candidly expressed the priority. Speaking in 2010, he advised, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”
Or, as U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres pointedly remarked, the true aim of the U.N.’s 2014 Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
Incidentally, I notice that the "scientist" who originated the infamous hockey stick graph has just lost a court case as he refused to hand over the data for analysis! I wonder why??
2. Perhaps you could let me know where I have stated that the fires in Brazil are not, in the main, man made? I can't remember writing that. I did, however, point out on another thread that such fires are a regular feature at this time of the year and are largely a result of slash and burn activities.
-
A fire started by a broken bottle thrown from a car is arguably as 'man made' as one deliberately started in order to clear land.
The trouble with south America, demand is infinitely higher to produce export beef than timber. The break even point of harvesting the timber instead of burning it is clearly a lot higher than that of cattle both in terms of initial and production costs.
Clearing the rainforest in order to create grazing land is short sighted, but has to be better than simply covering the place in concrete... I would suggest that the grasses grown for feed could be engineered to be fast growing and more carbon dioxide absorbent thereby helping to offset the effect of deforestation...
-
1. the wider scientific world agrees that man HAS contributed to Climate Change
2. I will finish with the question: so you think the fires in Brazil are not, in the main, man made and are, as we write, not seriously damaging our environment for decades to come? ??? ???
1. The climate debate has been taken over by leftie charlatans, who have seen it as an opportunity to redistribute wealth and change the Western economic structure.
Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 candidly expressed the priority. Speaking in 2010, he advised, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”
Or, as U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres pointedly remarked, the true aim of the U.N.’s 2014 Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
Incidentally, I notice that the "scientist" who originated the infamous hockey stick graph has just lost a court case as he refused to hand over the data for analysis! I wonder why??
2. Perhaps you could let me know where I have stated that the fires in Brazil are not, in the main, man made? I can't remember writing that. I did, however, point out on another thread that such fires are a regular feature at this time of the year and are largely a result of slash and burn activities.
1. I have heard that before, but never understood it. The leftie, Socialist, types I have ever known (especially in my parents family!) were all about British industries, no matter how out of date and damaging to the environment, continuing to work apace as the most important thing was full employment at full wages, and "F" the environment. How can it be beneficial to "leftie charlatans" (not really sure what that means either!!) to continue with the drive to make our factories, and the rest, more environmental friendly, let alone closing many "dirty" ones, which will continue to cost jobs (rather a right wing policy to increase profits) ? Arthur Scargill certainly did not care a damn about that!! Have I got that wrong? ??? ??? ;D ;D ;)
As for #2; I did not say you did. I was just asking the question to see where you stood on that one? :y
-
I think you lost the moral high ground when you accused him of being twisted, and then immediately compared him to Hitler. ::) ;D
I'm in good company, as I know LZ has called me Hitler before ;D
Hitler had some good ideas, and ones which I know the Farage Believers here would agree with. Trouble is, he will be more remembered, rightly, for some not so great ideas he pursued with staggering efficiency.
-
A fire started by a broken bottle thrown from a car is arguably as 'man made' as one deliberately started in order to clear land.
The trouble with south America, demand is infinitely higher to produce export beef than timber. The break even point of harvesting the timber instead of burning it is clearly a lot higher than that of cattle both in terms of initial and production costs.
Clearing the rainforest in order to create grazing land is short sighted, but has to be better than simply covering the place in concrete... I would suggest that the grasses grown for feed could be engineered to be fast growing and more carbon dioxide absorbent thereby helping to offset the effect of deforestation...
Yes, correct, and of course I accept for us in Britain to dictate to Brazil what they do for the sake of their economy is very hypocritical, as many centuries ago we had forests covering our land. We also decided to clear it for agriculture and lumber, to build more ships and houses, but, of course, we have got the excuse that back in the day we knew nothing about protecting the environment for the sake of the World! :P :D :D ;)
-
I think you lost the moral high ground when you accused him of being twisted, and then immediately compared him to Hitler. ::) ;D
I'm in good company, as I know LZ has called me Hitler before ;D
Hitler had some good ideas, and ones which I know the Farage Believers here would agree with. Trouble is, he will be more remembered, rightly, for some not so great ideas he pursued with staggering efficiency.
:o :o :o :o I have not, and would never (dare) to say that about you TB! ::) ::) :P :P ;D ;D ;)
Yes, and he did what the likes of Jeremy Corbyn would love to do; spend billions of Reichsmarks that Germany did not have and could only recoup by the acquisition of other countries - in Corbyn's case , the banking system and our public pockets!! ;D ;D ;D ;)
-
How can it be beneficial to "leftie charlatans" (not really sure what that means either!!) to continue with the drive to make our factories, and the rest, more environmental friendly, let alone closing many "dirty" ones, which will continue to cost jobs (rather a right wing policy to increase profits) ? Arthur Scargill certainly did not care a damn about that!! Have I got that wrong? ??? ??? ;D ;D ;)
"Leftie charlatans" is my term du jour for what a number of commentators refer to as "watermelons" (green on the outside, red on the inside). Essentially, such folk want to get rid of nation state powers in favour of a globalist bureaucratic cabal. These are not just lefties, but true Marxists who feel that the West is too rich and that our wealth and capitalist system should be stripped, to be replaced with a far-left new world order. The climate bandwagon is the one they chose as one of the best vehicles to achieve this.
Take these three genuine quotes:
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
and:
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."
- Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
and:
"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe."
- emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
Notice the common theme? ???
Now, don't get me wrong, I was concerned about the environment long before this current craze and have lobbied locally to save trees and protect green spaces. I am also appalled by the amount of fly-tipping and littering that goes on. (The plastic in the oceans is essentially the aquatic result of these two behaviours).
However, I do not believe that global governance, directed by a cabal of the rich (look up The Club of Rome), is in any way an answer to theses issues. In any event, I am more concerned about the prospect of another Dalton Minimum. With the recent castration of our energy grid, we could be in deep do-do. I notice, for example that, wind power was contributing just over 2% of our needs today and coal generation came back online. If anyone thinks we could manage a severe cold spell, they are living in cloud-cuckoo land. >:(
-
Thanks for the explanation Migalot 8) :y
-
Thanks for the explanation Migalot 8) :y
My pleasure. :y