The Weather Thread

[The Wengerbabies]

Bloody freezing, I wonder how many pensioners Keir Starmer has killed so far this week.

[Niall_Quinn]

I've seen a couple of interesting things recently.
One from Christopher Hitchens who noted that with countries like China and India around polluting heavily and with no sign of stopping anything we do won't make any real difference. Which is basically correct, even if we went net zero tomorrow it would barely make a dent. And another video from I can't remember who saying that because of the above we should be investing in technologies and ways of mitigating the consequences of climate change. Arguably a more realistic tactic and target than all the emissions targets which we clearly aren't going to meet.

Yeah but when I told you that 4 years ago you blanked. You really saying I don't have as much credibility as Christopher Hitchins? That hurts.

[Niall_Quinn]

Dude, the climate hoax is all about the corporations. And POLLUTION. The cunts are polluting everything, the soil, the water, the food, the air, you name it those motherfuckers have a pollution for it. Why do you think they are on-board with something so dumb as the climate hoax? Because it lets them pas the blame for their bullshit and destructive profiteering off on us, we have too many baths and drive too many miles, apparently. And the state has jumped in and said, fuck, that's a great idea. Lock the plebs up, to save the planet. Even better then wet markets and The Science. This is The Science on steroids, as far from science as you can get, with the perps calling the shots and the crowd paying the fees. Same as it ever was but just on a grander scale.

[Letters]

Yeah but when I told you that 4 years ago you blanked. You really saying I don't have as much credibility as Christopher Hitchins? That hurts.

I can't remember the exact exchange you're talking about. But I've been to India and China. I've seen the smog there. I know what the emissions figures are like per country. The idea that anything we do won't make any difference in the global context is not a revelation to me - I've been saying that for years on here too. I don't know if that means we shouldn't try though. It's like saying "well everyone else is littering, and more than me, so I might as well throw stuff on the floor too". I'd suggest that "every little helps", to coin a phrase so while I'm not convinced we can make much of a dent on our own I think doing our bit and leading by example is a good thing. We can't really try to put pressure on other countries to sort themselves out if we aren't doing it ourselves. If nothing else, reducing the amount of stuff we pump into the atmosphere has to be a good thing, I've seen a couple of articles on the BBC about the smog in India. I checked in with a colleague over there and it isn't good, she's having physical symptoms because of it. There is an argument that money would be better spent dealing with the consequences of climate change, but I still think working to stop polluting the planet is a good thing.

My issue with your stance is you seem to either claim that climate change isn't happening - anyone of a certain age and with a working memory knows how the climate has changed in the last few decades. Or you claim the effects of it are being over-stated, or that it isn't man's actions which is causing it - I remember one post you claimed it was "the sun" with no further explanation. And your definition of science as opposed to "The Science" always seems to be "stuff you believe". If it's science which isn't what you believe than you declare it propaganda. Pretty easy to convince yourself that you're right if you dismiss all the evidence to the contrary. I don't understand the argument that green polices are all about money - tell you what else there's money in: oil. Have you seen Dubai?

TL;DR - I think we are aligned on the pollution thing, so if nothing else burning fewer fossil fuels should help that. And even though I basically agree that we can't make much of a global difference on our own, leading by example will help us influence other countries.

[Niall_Quinn]

I can't remember the exact exchange you're talking about. But I've been to India and China. I've seen the smog there. I know what the emissions figures are like per country. The idea that anything we do won't make any difference in the global context is not a revelation to me - I've been saying that for years on here too. I don't know if that means we shouldn't try though. It's like saying "well everyone else is littering, and more than me, so I might as well throw stuff on the floor too". I'd suggest that "every little helps", to coin a phrase so while I'm not convinced we can make much of a dent on our own I think doing our bit and leading by example is a good thing. We can't really try to put pressure on other countries to sort themselves out if we aren't doing it ourselves. If nothing else, reducing the amount of stuff we pump into the atmosphere has to be a good thing, I've seen a couple of articles on the BBC about the smog in India. I checked in with a colleague over there and it isn't good, she's having physical symptoms because of it. There is an argument that money would be better spent dealing with the consequences of climate change, but I still think working to stop polluting the planet is a good thing.

My issue with your stance is you seem to either claim that climate change isn't happening - anyone of a certain age and with a working memory knows how the climate has changed in the last few decades. Or you claim the effects of it are being over-stated, or that it isn't man's actions which is causing it - I remember one post you claimed it was "the sun" with no further explanation. And your definition of science as opposed to "The Science" always seems to be "stuff you believe". If it's science which isn't what you believe than you declare it propaganda. Pretty easy to convince yourself that you're right if you dismiss all the evidence to the contrary. I don't understand the argument that green polices are all about money - tell you what else there's money in: oil. Have you seen Dubai?

TL;DR - I think we are aligned on the pollution thing, so if nothing else burning fewer fossil fuels should help that. And even though I basically agree that we can't make much of a global difference on our own, leading by example will help us influence other countries.

I ALWAYS highlighted pollution as a problem. ALWAYS. And I always told you the corpo scum are getting out of their crimes by blaming us for the shit they cause. They put shit they'd have to pay to dispose safely of in the air, the food, the water, and then they tell us taking too many showers is going to kill the ice skating polar bears on the Thames? The "The Science (TM)" is pure bullshit because it suits them to lie and bribe their way out of their responsibilities. As always, they want all the profit and they want us to pick up the costs. And their new mate Starmer boasts about it and sucks more corporate cock than even Blair.

Climate change is happening, as always and as normal. Natural "catastrophes" are in total line with historical trends. Carbon composition is LOW - not high, as claimed, historically speaking. And, as you have started to discover, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING human beings can do to influence the global climate. Their "The Science" is pure bunk which is why they have to censor. It's impossibly huge compared to our tiny capacity to influence it. But we can pollute the shit out of our coasts and rivers and we do. That definitely needs to stop, don't disagree there.

As for the Chinese and Indians, what are you going to offer them for deciding to run their lives? And what sort of buy-in do you expect? I'd bank on zero, yet again making this whole climate con bullshit obvious for what it is - an attack by globalists on the west to drag down living standards.

[Letters]

I ALWAYS highlighted pollution as a problem. ALWAYS.

OK. So we agree on that then.

And I always told you the corpo scum are getting out of their crimes by blaming us for the shit they cause. They put shit they'd have to pay to dispose safely of in the air, the food, the water, and then they tell us taking too many showers is going to kill the ice skating polar bears on the Thames?

I don't know if they tell us anything, but people do like cheap stuff and historically haven't cared about or been aware of the environmental aspects of production of good. That is starting to change.

The "The Science (TM)" is pure bullshit because it suits them to lie and bribe their way out of their responsibilities.

If that were true then surely The Science would say that we aren't having an effect on the climate. That way companies could carry on doing what they like and there would be no pressure for them to do different. Like when tobacco companies were funding lots of questionable research which showed that smoking was nice and safe, thank you very much. There's surely more incentive for science to downplay any effects.
(If you want to do ™ by the way then you can do [ TM][/TM] - without the space of course.)

Climate change is happening, as always and as normal. Natural "catastrophes" are in total line with historical trends. Carbon composition is LOW - not high, as claimed, historically speaking.

Citation needed.

And, as you have started to discover, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING human beings can do to influence the global climate.

I don't agree with that, but there's nothing we are willing to do to influence it - or rather stop influencing it. It's probably too late, and even if it isn't we as a species aren't just going to stop. And you can't expect emerging economies like India and China to when we've been stinking up the place for 150 years.

an attack by globalists on the west to drag down living standards.

If they do want that then they're doing a poor job, living standards have admittedly gone down a bit with the recent inflation spike but that's been caused by global events like Covid and the Ukraine situation. Overall living standards are pretty high in the West for most people. And why would "they" want that anyway? Better living standards means people have more money which means they'll spend more money. That's a good thing for the big corporations isn't it?

Once again this is your suspicion of "them". We've been through some of the other incorrect conclusions that has led you to.