Climate fanatics - where are you

At least a quarter of the billionaires registered as delegates at Cop28 made their fortunes from highly polluting industries such as petrochemicals, mining and beef production, a new analysis has shown.

The findings, revealed to the Guardian in an exclusive analysis of the 34 billionaires who are signed up to the UN summit, raise concerns about the influence wielded by ultra-rich, mega-emitters on the world’s efforts to tackle the climate crisis. Together the 34 are worth about $495.5bn.

The high number of billionaires at the conference, along with the many private jets they flew in on, suggests Cop may now be second only to Davos as a gathering point for the world’s ultra-rich, who can meet and potentially influence government leaders and senior politicians and bureaucrats, while making deals with other business owners.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ing-industries

today Spain records highest ever December temperature on the back of record snow and cold in Europe last week

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Historic day... <br><br>We just observed the hottest December day for Spain ���� on record with +29.9°C in Málaga.<br><br>This heat is hard to comprehend in the middle of December, so near the solstice. <a href="https://t.co/GMcVkx3TmI">pic.twitter.com/GMcVkx3TmI</a></p>&mdash; Scott Duncan (@ScottDuncanWX) <a href="https://twitter.com/ScottDuncanWX/status/1734629121257292151?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 12, 2023</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

can you explain what you mean about the heliocentric model?

---

I'm genuinely interested in what makes you say this, it could mean a lot of different things?

Like the sun isn't the centre of the universe - nobody thinks that, It's in the outer arm of a fairly unremarkable galaxy
Also you could argue that the earth and the sun go around each other, as earth's gravity also has an effect on the sun (although the centre of Gravity between the two is almost in the centre of the sun)
What exactly are you trying to say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

I'm genuinely interested in what makes you say this, it could mean a lot of different things?

Like the sun isn't the centre of the universe - nobody thinks that, It's in the outer arm of a fairly unremarkable galaxy
Also you could argue that the earth and the sun go around each other, as earth's gravity also has an effect on the sun (although the centre of Gravity between the two is almost in the centre of the sun)
What exactly are you trying to say?

---

It's totally unprovable and just a theory, and by just pointing this out the climate disciples like to call me a conspiracy theorist but cannot prove the theory.
https://interestingengineering.com/s...ocentric-model, the Astrophysicists cannot decide amongst themselves but the ccmb font of all knowledge brigade have it all boxed off nice and cushty.
Keep on trying lads, but just come back with some facts. :thumbup:

Even if climate change is all down to purely some cyclical natural process where is the harm in trying to develop 100% green energy which would at least give the UK energy security? Of course if it is all down to some natural process, and burning fossil fuels is irrelevant, civilisation as we know it on Planet Earth is doomed anyway!

It seems to me there is no denying the dramatic melting of ice in the polar regions. If all the ice melts then I read that sea level would rise by 70 metres and of course we would lose the heat-deflecting role of the ice caps which could lead to run-away global warming.

I don't think it's helpful to say that of course global warming has happened many times before, millions or billions of years ago - it may well have done, but there weren't thousands of cities housing billions of people at the time!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gofer Blue

Even if climate change is all down to purely some cyclical natural process where is the harm in trying to develop 100% green energy which would at least give the UK energy security? Of course if it is all down to some natural process, and burning fossil fuels is irrelevant, civilisation as we know it on Planet Earth is doomed anyway!

It seems to me there is no denying the dramatic melting of ice in the polar regions. If all the ice melts then I read that sea level would rise by 70 metres and of course we would lose the heat-deflecting role of the ice caps which could lead to run-away global warming.

I don't think it's helpful to say that of course global warming has happened many times before, millions or billions of years ago - it may well have done, but there weren't thousands of cities housing billions of people at the time!

---

the case for climate change being man-made is utterly compelling.
none of the people on this board who don't agree with it have been able to describe what that case is, which strongly suggests that they don't have sufficient awareness or understanding of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heathblue

It's totally unprovable and just a theory, and by just pointing this out the climate disciples like to call me a conspiracy theorist but cannot prove the theory.
https://interestingengineering.com/s...ocentric-model, the Astrophysicists cannot decide amongst themselves but the ccmb font of all knowledge brigade have it all boxed off nice and cushty.
Keep on trying lads, but just come back with some facts. :thumbup:

---

when you say astrophysicists cannot decide amongst themselves, what specific things do you refer to?

the link you posted is rather strange - it keeps referring to the sun being the centre of the universe, which nobody believes to be the case, if that is your problem with it then everyone will probably agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gofer Blue

Even if climate change is all down to purely some cyclical natural process where is the harm in trying to develop 100% green energy which would at least give the UK energy security? Of course if it is all down to some natural process, and burning fossil fuels is irrelevant, civilisation as we know it on Planet Earth is doomed anyway!

It seems to me there is no denying the dramatic melting of ice in the polar regions. If all the ice melts then I read that sea level would rise by 70 metres and of course we would lose the heat-deflecting role of the ice caps which could lead to run-away global warming.

I don't think it's helpful to say that of course global warming has happened many times before, millions or billions of years ago - it may well have done, but there weren't thousands of cities housing billions of people at the time!

---

A very measured response GB and much of what you say I'm 100% in agreement with, I have 2 children and 6 grand children and want the world to be a nice place for them including clean air and would back all / any controls that would help achieve fhis, what I'll not fall into line with is, having to listen to the world is dying every 5 years by the same individuals getting very rich whilst not practicing what they preach or at the very least actually prove the science of the religion they preach, stop indoctrinating kids in primary and junior schools. My science is lived experience and having listened to this rubbish say 40 years, discounting the 1st 22 show me the evidence not the modeling and theory BTW I have a brilliant full set of books on this topic that were written 50,s much of historical data is made very difficult to obtain on the wonder web by obvuscation methods, luckily written books still exist, it was theory then as it's theory now, the major difference now is that the whole subject has been hijacked and many brilliant climatology experts on the other side of the coin have been silenced and canceled, this alone should bring out the curiosity in people, there is very little across the table debate on this, just like C19, once the science was settled, it was not possible to challenge it without being labeled!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heathblue

It's totally unprovable and just a theory, and by just pointing this out the climate disciples like to call me a conspiracy theorist but cannot prove the theory.
https://interestingengineering.com/s...ocentric-model, the Astrophysicists cannot decide amongst themselves but the ccmb font of all knowledge brigade have it all boxed off nice and cushty.
Keep on trying lads, but just come back with some facts. :thumbup:

---

Predictions can be made about where a planet will be in the sky at any given time based on what we know about their orbits.

These predictions are always correct. You can easily check it yourself on an app.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Predictions can be made about where a planet will be in the sky at any given time based on what we know about their orbits.

These predictions are always correct. You can easily check it yourself on an app.

---

It’s not fact though it’s an assumption, like most things and these assumptions carry more weight if you believe in them.

How do they know exactly how far away the sun is for example - it’s a theory. Just because NASA says it’s 93m miles away there is no way of proving it.

Einstein had plenty of theories. Science theories are actually neither proven or disproven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gofer Blue

Even if climate change is all down to purely some cyclical natural process where is the harm in trying to develop 100% green energy which would at least give the UK energy security? Of course if it is all down to some natural process, and burning fossil fuels is irrelevant, civilisation as we know it on Planet Earth is doomed anyway!

It seems to me there is no denying the dramatic melting of ice in the polar regions. If all the ice melts then I read that sea level would rise by 70 metres and of course we would lose the heat-deflecting role of the ice caps which could lead to run-away global warming.

I don't think it's helpful to say that of course global warming has happened many times before, millions or billions of years ago - it may well have done, but there weren't thousands of cities housing billions of people at the time!

---

Good post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

Good post.

---

Simple question , why do planners allow housing to be built on flood plains and brownfield sites…:hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

Simple question , why do planners allow housing to be built on flood plains and brownfield sites…:hehe:

---

Simple answer - I have no idea why planners allow housing to be built on flood plains if there are no adequate flood defences in place. What was a once in a century flooding event a few decades back is now once in a handful of years. But what is your problem with brownfield sites? I would like to see all new housing built on brownfield sites! I have obviously missed something there, along with your choice of :hehe: as a sign off!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

No need to downplay your actual accomplishments. I mean working for the same company for 36 years, having at least two A Levels and still being the right side of 50 is no mean feat for starters!

---

I'm currently on my 3rd Job since this time last year, fell into this one by total chance, nothing is forever however I've just got through the 3 month probation period, changed engineering sectors and did think it was going south 6 weeks ago, nuclear is so yesterday 😂 but finding it challenging learning a new set of specifications I said it 3 jobs ago, but this is my last engineering job. NQAT the stress is unrelenting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heathblue

A very measured response GB and much of what you say I'm 100% in agreement with, I have 2 children and 6 grand children and want the world to be a nice place for them including clean air and would back all / any controls that would help achieve fhis, what I'll not fall into line with is, having to listen to the world is dying every 5 years by the same individuals getting very rich whilst not practicing what they preach or at the very least actually prove the science of the religion they preach, stop indoctrinating kids in primary and junior schools.

---

I also have children (two) and grandchildren (five), so the future of civilisation on planet Earth is also quite an important topic for me too! Not so much for me myself as I am already well past the “three score years and ten” landmark, so my days are definitely numbered. (According to life insurance actuary tables I should have another 10 years apparently!).

When you say you “want the world to be a nice place for them including clean air and would back all / any controls that would help achieve this” I am a bit confused. If climate change is not man-made what possible controls can we put in place? We are not able to control the weather or prevent climate change if it is a natural event, so we are inevitably doomed surely? Or do you think that we can live through what's coming as it is not going to be as severe as predicted i.e. hotter summers, occasional droughts, wetter/milder winters? That's just a rather myopic U.K. perspective of course – the rest of the world could be in much bigger trouble with severe droughts or severe flooding, leading to mass starvation and mass emigration.

Looking on the bright side we may not have to worry about climate change at all if Putin defeats Ukraine then decides to take on a NATO country like Latvia or Belarus or the Middle East erupts into Armageddon.

Nuclear annihilation would sort out our sustainable energy worries quite quickly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

It’s not fact though it’s an assumption, like most things and these assumptions carry more weight if you believe in them.

How do they know exactly how far away the sun is for example - it’s a theory. Just because NASA says it’s 93m miles away there is no way of proving it.

Einstein had plenty of theories. Science theories are actually neither proven or disproven.

---

have you bothered to find out how we know how far the sun is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

It’s not fact though it’s an assumption, like most things and these assumptions carry more weight if you believe in them.

How do they know exactly how far away the sun is for example - it’s a theory. Just because NASA says it’s 93m miles away there is no way of proving it.

Einstein had plenty of theories. Science theories are actually neither proven or disproven.

---

The word theory keeps coming up. I really do recommend looking into what 'scientific theory' means, because it doesn't mean guess/assumption/uncertainty/doubt.
There is a theory of gravity (we've had more than one over the years) but it doesn't mean that gravity might stop working one day. A theory offers an explanation for how it happens.

The distance from the earth to the sun is not a theory.

This conversation is about the earth orbiting the sun, which apparently at least one poster doesn't believe happens. Small objects orbit larger ones, and that is a principle (not a theory) that we have used to launch satellites and now I can have an instant video call with someone in Australia or use GPS. I don't need to sit on a satellite and experience an orbit to know they're real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

No need to downplay your actual accomplishments. I mean working for the same company for 36 years, having at least two A Levels and still being the right side of 50 is no mean feat for starters!

---

Now this is the kind of thing we need a scientific theory to offer an explanation for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gofer Blue

If climate change is not man-made what possible controls can we put in place?

---

Highlighting the most important question in this post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

It’s not fact though it’s an assumption, like most things and these assumptions carry more weight if you believe in them.

How do they know exactly how far away the sun is for example - it’s a theory. Just because NASA says it’s 93m miles away there is no way of proving it.

Einstein had plenty of theories. Science theories are actually neither proven or disproven.

---

Using calculations gleaned from parallax observations Cassini had a fairly decent stab at the distance involved - and that was in the 17th century. As we have far more technology at our disposal nowadays (including knowing how fast photons travel), we can now anticipate the movement of the planets around the sun (anannual event for us on Earth) in our solar system to such a degree that we can get space craft to return to our spinning and moving planet after weeks, months or years, wherever it is in relation to the sun. To imagine that the distance from the sun is only a theory is rather ridiculous. I think it's more of a case of not understanding how such distances are determined.
I don't like silly analogies but, with my cartographer's hat on, it's like saying that triangulation calculations aren't proven.
It's easier to dismiss science when you don't understand it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

Using calculations gleaned from parallax observations Cassini had a fairly decent stab at the distance involved - and that was in the 17th century. As we have far more technology at our disposal nowadays we can now anticipate the movement of the planets around the sun (anannual event for us on Earth) in our solar system to such a degree that we can get space craft to return to our spinning and moving planet after weeks, months or years, wherever it is in relation to the sun. To imagine that the distance from the sun is only a theory is rather ridiculous. I think it's more of a case of not understanding how such distances are determined.

---

We've also in the last century sent various spacecraft to visit several of the other planets, landed on a comet with pinpoint precision with a trajectory that took 12 years and looped past the earth and mars several times to get to the correct speed and position exactly as calculated.
the idea that we could do all that but somehow not know for sure how far away the sun is is utterly ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

We've also in the last century sent various spacecraft to visit several of the other planets, landed on a comet with pinpoint precision with a trajectory that took 12 years and looped past the earth and mars several times to get to the correct speed and position exactly as calculated.
the idea that we could do all that but somehow not know for sure how far away the sun is is utterly ridiculous.

---

But there are several on here who know all that was done on a set of Pinewood Studios and they know it would be fatal for any human to leave the earth's atmosphere 'cos their heads would explode, and they know you are a dupe of the MSM, the WEF and the Illuminati. The truth is to be found in the bowels of the interweb, and all scientists are in the pay of someone or something that exists only to tell you lies (aka scientific theories.... and scientific observations....)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

But there are several on here who know all that was done on a set of Pinewood Studios and they know it would be fatal for any human to leave the earth's atmosphere 'cos their heads would explode, and they know you are a dupe of the MSM, the WEF and the Illuminati. The truth is to be found in the bowels of the interweb, and all scientists are in the pay of someone or something that exists only to tell you lies (aka scientific theories.... and scientific observations....)

---

:hehe::hehe::thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

But there are several on here who know all that was done on a set of Pinewood Studios and they know it would be fatal for any human to leave the earth's atmosphere 'cos their heads would explode, and they know you are a dupe of the MSM, the WEF and the Illuminati. The truth is to be found in the bowels of the interweb, and all scientists are in the pay of someone or something that exists only to tell you lies (aka scientific theories.... and scientific observations....)

---

My guess for this embarrassment is this:

- The earth orbiting the sun is a theory (sic).

- scientific theories cannot be proven.

- therefore, it cannot be proven that the earth orbits the sun.



It almost certainly originated on some nonsense website rather than independent thought from someone who did their own research.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

My guess for this embarrassment is this:

- The earth orbiting the sun is a theory (sic).

- scientific theories cannot be proven.

- therefore, it cannot be proven that the earth orbits the sun.



It almost certainly originated on some nonsense website rather than independent thought from someone who did their own research.

---

You make me laugh ,why do you insist of trolling posters …… do you feel brave behind a keyboard …..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

You make me laugh ,why do you insist of trolling posters …… do you feel brave behind a keyboard …..

---

If someone pots something as stupid as nobody knows how far away the sun is then they have to expect some piss take

It was a wind up, if they say it’s 99m miles away I’ll take their word for it.

Plenty of other theories are open to interpretation though which is the point of scientific research.

Instead of asking new users to this forum who is the Cardiff manager to prove they're human, can we ask if the Earth is flat instead? Will filter out the mentalists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doucas

Instead of asking new users to this forum who is the Cardiff manager to prove they're human, can we ask if the Earth is flat instead? Will filter out the mentalists.

---

So just to clarify, you just want a forum ( which is moderated and free of charge ) which only consists of opinions on subjects which you and your followers agree with, sorry, but that’s going to happen is it , but it’s good to know what you’re all about.

The pile ons are pretty good though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doucas

Instead of asking new users to this forum who is the Cardiff manager to prove they're human, can we ask if the Earth is flat instead? Will filter out the mentalists.

---

Anyone answered the question you’ve asked thirty odd times yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Anyone answered the question you’ve asked thirty odd times yet?

---

Nice shit stirring old timer - great intervention- why don’t you answer it and put us all out of our misery?

https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&...4DA&gws_rd=ssl

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

Nice shit stirring old timer - great intervention- why don’t you answer it and put us all out of our misery?

https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&...4DA&gws_rd=ssl

---

You’ve proved over months that you’re unwilling, or more likely, unable to answer Doucas’ question, so I don’t understand why you bothered replying to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

You’ve proved over months that you’re unwilling, or more likely, unable to answer Dorcas’ question, so I don’t understand why you bothered replying to me.

---

I’ve pointed out numerous times where to find the answer, and to assist you further I’ve presented a link. If you’re that curious use the link and post the answer back on here.

I’ve not posted it as it’s not something I’m remotely interested in and as far as I know neither is anyone else. It’s not a gotcha moment. Let me know how you get on.
Dorcas plays the man all the time.

Not remotely interested in the subject, yet you start a thread entitled “Climate fanatics - where are you?” which is now on its eighth page partly thanks to your thirty three messages on the subject :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Not remotely interested in the subject, yet you start a thread entitled “Climate fanatics - where are you?” which is now on its eighth page partly thanks to your thirty three messages on the subject :hehe:

---

I’m not specifically interested in the question he’s asked 30 times on this forum, but as you appear to be, can you post the answer to put the question he’s raised thirty times to bed ?

Do you want the Google link again - as that’s where I found it just like him.Its amazing what information you can get from a football forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

I’m not specifically interested in the question he’s asked 30 times on this forum, but as you appear to be, can you post the answer to put the question he’s raised thirty times to bed ?

Do you want the Google link again - as that’s where I found it just like him.Its amazing what information you can get from a football forum.

---

A pretty feeble swerve if I may say so. I don’t know the answer to Doucas’ question, but it wasn’t addressed to me, because, according to you, I’m a climate fanatic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

A pretty feeble swerve if I may say so. I don’t know the answer to Doucas’ question, but it wasn’t addressed to me, because, according to you, I’m a climate fanatic.

---

I wouldn’t have a clue what you are , but your opinion is welcomed all the same as long as it’s delivered with the knowledge that other people’s opinions may differ. Intelligent discontent is part of free speech and pile on’s get the responses they deserve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

I wouldn’t have a clue what you are , but your opinion is welcomed all the same as long as it’s delivered with the knowledge that other people’s opinions may differ. Intelligent discontent is part of free speech and pile on’s get the responses they deserve.

---

“intelligent discontent”?

Climate fanatics - where are you !!

Well they have basically looked at the rising fuel, manufacturers, gas, electric costs, and said bugger this we do need fossil fuels in the interim to keep us rich never mind the poorer folk we sometimes wave at..

And our selfish net zero targets we once set from our comfatable middle class lives is now biting us, so let's relax our targets as we're losing incomes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

I wouldn’t have a clue what you are , but your opinion is welcomed all the same as long as it’s delivered with the knowledge that other people’s opinions may differ. Intelligent discontent is part of free speech and pile on’s get the responses they deserve.

---

Careful your upsetting the high priest gang of socialism, where it's our view or ridicule.. Or rudeness, tough keyboard warriors.

Must be an age thing, underachieving, or simply grumpy old men syndrome ??