Climate fanatics - where are you

[Rjk]

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.

[Rjk]

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.

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.

[Heathblue]

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!!!!

[lardy]

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.

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.

[TWGL1]

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.

[jon1959]

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.

[TWGL1]

Good post.

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

[jon1959]

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

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 as a sign off!

[Heathblue]

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.

[Gofer Blue]

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.

[Rjk]

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?

[lardy]

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.

[lardy]

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.

[lardy]

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

Highlighting the most important question in this post.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

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.

[Rjk]

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.

[jon1959]

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....)

[jeepster]

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....)

[lardy]

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.

[TWGL1]

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 …..

[Rjk]

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

[TWGL1]

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.

[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.

[TWGL1]

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.

[the other bob wilson]

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?