"Currants Bw..."

[Mac76]

Make public transport free - that would cost pennies by comparison

Agreed

Utilise nuclear power (by far the safest technology even compared to these new non-green green alternatives)

Nuclear power is incredibly dangerous, no matter how 'safe' people claim it to be, Murphy's Law needs to be applied here - especailly in an era where. yes, climate change is causing mroe earthquakes and natural disasters

it has demonstrably gone disatrously wrong on several occasions, plus it creates waste which needs to be buried for thousands of years because it's so unsafe

Fund projects that improve existing technologies rather than replace them with ruinously costly non-alternatives like the impractical and entirely unsustainable electric car.

We need to move away from oil as much as possible - and do you think car manufacturers aren't already trying to make engines as fuel-efficient as possible - it's one of their constant priorities as it's a major selling point

I think the real answer is to use your first proposition to discourge such heavy car use as we see in this country.

One advantage of electric cars is that the wankers who love driving around revving their engines loudly will no longer be able to do so, meanigng they will have to go and find a quieter way of making up for their small-penis syndrome

Send practical assistance to third world countries to assist with upgrading efficient and cleaner power grids, again for a faction of the cost of net zero.

agreed, but those power grids should be based on using renewables wherever possible

[Niall_Quinn]

Sure, anyone can read. But the problem is you have shown repeatedly that your ability to process data is skewed so much by your worldview that it leads you to wrong conclusions.
The information you accept as "real science" depends entirely on whether it confirms what you want to believe. Everything else is dismissed as "propaganda" or "fake science".
And sure, humans have survived other shifts of climate. We will survive this one - as a species we will survive, but the effects of climate change will kill a lot of people.
I looked at the source of that long term climate graph you posted. This is the paper it's from:

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...re_Projections

Quote from it:



That's from the source you posted

Now. I don't think there's anything we can do about it. The UK isn't anywhere near the worst offender and we're not going to get countries like China or India to stop developing, or the US to temper their excesses.
And actually in this country probably won't suffer as much as some others. I also agree that some of the "green" ideas aren't actually going to improve things. I don't think Electric Vehicles are the silver bullet some seem to think.

In brief - climate change is happening, it's happened in my lifetime. There is pretty much consensus that we are a cause. But there's bugger all we can do about it anyway. I don't think that means we shouldn't try, we might as well recycle and think about our carbon footprints. But when push comes to shove I'm not willing to give up my comfortable lifestyle and nor is anyone else. So we'd be better off trying to work out how to deal with climate change rather than trying to stop it.

Consensus is irrelevant in science and this is where the great "proof" has come from. A single, fraudulent study that has been mercilessly picked apart. The climate scam is a political and economic issue but it isn't and never has been scientific. That's why consensus is constantly mentioned because nobody can put down science to prove the point.

But yes, you are right, the little unelected Indian chap who was bowing to the dementia patient in chief yesterday insists we will all just have to get fucked so we can save the planet, even though nobody else can be bothered and whatever we do can't possibly make any difference.

What a manifesto. Definitely voting for that. Who's with me?

[HCZ_Reborn]

Agreed



Nuclear power is incredibly dangerous, no matter how 'safe' people claim it to be, Murphy's Law needs to be applied here - especailly in an era where. yes, climate change is causing mroe earthquakes and natural disasters

it has demonstrably gone disatrously wrong on several occasions, plus it creates waste which needs to be buried for thousands of years because it's so unsafe



We need to move away from oil as much as possible - and do you think car manufacturers aren't already trying to make engines as fuel-efficient as possible - it's one of their constant priorities as it's a major selling point

I think the real answer is to use your first proposition to discourge such heavy car use as we see in this country.

One advantage of electric cars is that the wankers who love driving around revving their engines loudly will no longer be able to do so, meanigng they will have to go and find a quieter way of making up for their small-penis syndrome



agreed, but those power grids should be based on using renewables wherever possible

[Niall_Quinn]

Agreed



Nuclear power is incredibly dangerous, no matter how 'safe' people claim it to be, Murphy's Law needs to be applied here - especailly in an era where. yes, climate change is causing mroe earthquakes and natural disasters

it has demonstrably gone disatrously wrong on several occasions, plus it creates waste which needs to be buried for thousands of years because it's so unsafe



We need to move away from oil as much as possible - and do you think car manufacturers aren't already trying to make engines as fuel-efficient as possible - it's one of their constant priorities as it's a major selling point

I think the real answer is to use your first proposition to discourge such heavy car use as we see in this country.

One advantage of electric cars is that the wankers who love driving around revving their engines loudly will no longer be able to do so, meanigng they will have to go and find a quieter way of making up for their small-penis syndrome



agreed, but those power grids should be based on using renewables wherever possible

Nuclear powered generators that can be transported on the back of trucks and use spent fuel from older technologies already exist. Funded privately because governments don't want to go near solutions because then there would be no more problems.

Nuclear power has the best safety record of all the energy industries, far, far safer than coal which has the worst. Yet coal fired stations are being reactivated all over the world to supplement failing grids that rely on new technologies that are unreliable and pollute just as much as the older technologies - the trick being the pollution is shifted out of sight and therefore out of mind.

The real issue with nuclear power is water. The technology requires a lot of water. But even this is being solved by private funding. And there are future "impossible" technologies on the horizon that terrify the profiteers of the green revolution.

We should be directing every scrap of R&D into these technologies so because, whether the climate catastrophe is real or not, these are better technologies with far more scope to provide clean, cheap and reliable energy globally.

It's another dead giveaway that exposes the climate scam. All actual solutions are ruthlessly ignored.

[Niall_Quinn]

Haven't seen that one. Interesting, but a lot of stuff glossed over. Like the air pollution. He should have mentioned how that's constituted. Just like radiation, when you dig into the figures it's surprising where the main pollutants come from. Unfiltered exhaust from power production, obviously, but also vehicle brakes and tyres. These create hundreds of times more pollution than the exhaust coming out of combustion engines. Because electric vehicles are heavier than real cars they pollute even more in this respect. He also whitewashed Fukushima, a little bit at least. The real problem there was the long term release of contaminated water back into the sea. That's definitely going to have at least a localised an effect on the environment long term.

But yes, the risk assessment of nuclear by those pushing the climate alarm is hysterical and abusive to science.

[WMUG]

From what I understand, the cost of public transport is a much less significant barrier to entry than its viability as an alternative to driving.

To get to the city centre from where I live, driving takes about as much time as the tram. It's a clean, comfortable and overall pleasant environment, and you'll never be waiting longer than 12 minutes (I know that's unconscionable to Londoners, but it's honestly fine). Unsurprisingly, the tram gets excellent ridership from all sorts of people, including people who have cars.

To get to the shopping centre on the edge of town, you'd either need to get the tram into the city centre and back out again, or get a bus. Either way takes about an hour.

The bus goes on a windy route that makes you feel sick, and the suspension on the buses is crap so it's a loud, bumpy, uncomfortable ride all the way. Oh, and if you miss it, you'll be waiting for at least half an hour, maybe an hour depending on the route you choose.

Alternatively, you could drive there in 15 minutes. Unsurprisingly, the only people on the bus are old biddies who can't drive any more. The bus prices were recently put down to £2 for a single, in preparation for them coming under public ownership soon. It doesn't seem to have had any effect on those routes, because the overall experience is so poor.

If you want to get more people out of their cars and onto those buses, you need to increase their frequency so that people don't have to plan when to get there, they can just turn up and go. You also need to make them more comfortable, and give them routes that don't go all around the houses so the journey isn't artificially lengthened.

Making it free would be nice too, but not the most important piece of the puzzle.

[Letters]

Consensus is irrelevant in science and this is where the great "proof" has come from.

Well it's not irrelevant, is it? I mean, if all of the relevant experts agree on something in a scientific field - or the vast majority do - then it does lend credibility to the idea about which there is agreement.
It's not proof of course, nothing should ever be said to be proven in science. But it's certainly not irrelevant.

That's why consensus is constantly mentioned because nobody can put down science to prove the point.

When you're shown evidence you dismiss it. For example:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
No doubt you'll say that's propaganda. Which is fine, but don't say that there's no science which indicates climate change. There's loads, you simply reject it.

But given that you're not going to get the big offenders to change - and actually, why should they? The West have caused this problem, it's a bit rich of us to tell them they can't develop as we have.
Given that, we'd do better working on mitigating the effects of climate change - I think we can all agree the climate is changing, even if you reject the notion that we're causing it.
Thinking that putting solar panels on buildings or buying electric cars is going to have any effect is ludicrous.

[Mac76]

From what I understand, the cost of public transport is a much less significant barrier to entry than its viability as an alternative to driving.

To get to the city centre from where I live, driving takes about as much time as the tram. It's a clean, comfortable and overall pleasant environment, and you'll never be waiting longer than 12 minutes (I know that's unconscionable to Londoners, but it's honestly fine). Unsurprisingly, the tram gets excellent ridership from all sorts of people, including people who have cars.

To get to the shopping centre on the edge of town, you'd either need to get the tram into the city centre and back out again, or get a bus. Either way takes about an hour.

The bus goes on a windy route that makes you feel sick, and the suspension on the buses is crap so it's a loud, bumpy, uncomfortable ride all the way. Oh, and if you miss it, you'll be waiting for at least half an hour, maybe an hour depending on the route you choose.

Alternatively, you could drive there in 15 minutes. Unsurprisingly, the only people on the bus are old biddies who can't drive any more. The bus prices were recently put down to £2 for a single, in preparation for them coming under public ownership soon. It doesn't seem to have had any effect on those routes, because the overall experience is so poor.

If you want to get more people out of their cars and onto those buses, you need to increase their frequency so that people don't have to plan when to get there, they can just turn up and go. You also need to make them more comfortable, and give them routes that don't go all around the houses so the journey isn't artificially lengthened.

Making it free would be nice too, but not the most important piece of the puzzle.

Well if it was free then demand would go up quite a bit i suspect, which in turn would lead to the provision of more services and routes

[WMUG]

Well if it was free then demand would go up quite a bit i suspect, which in turn would lead to the provision of more services and routes

You'd think so, but that's not what happened here when fares got reduced

It seems like there was a small increase in passenger numbers, looking at the data they've provided, but extra routes haven't been provided.

Then again, with a big overhaul to the bus system due to happen over the next couple of years, it could be that they're holding off until then.

[Niall_Quinn]

Well it's not irrelevant, is it? I mean, if all of the relevant experts agree on something in a scientific field - or the vast majority do - then it does lend credibility to the idea about which there is agreement.
It's not proof of course, nothing should ever be said to be proven in science. But it's certainly not irrelevant.


When you're shown evidence you dismiss it. For example:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
No doubt you'll say that's propaganda. Which is fine, but don't say that there's no science which indicates climate change. There's loads, you simply reject it.

But given that you're not going to get the big offenders to change - and actually, why should they? The West have caused this problem, it's a bit rich of us to tell them they can't develop as we have.
Given that, we'd do better working on mitigating the effects of climate change - I think we can all agree the climate is changing, even if you reject the notion that we're causing it.
Thinking that putting solar panels on buildings or buying electric cars is going to have any effect is ludicrous.

And don't change the argument to one that requires a lower threshold to make. The claim was the science is settled beyond all doubt. It isn't. There's a sea of doubt and for pretty obvious reasons. The arguments being made by climate alarmists are on their face ludicrous. Their science is based on modelling. Opposition voices aren't even allowed to speak. The debate is outlawed and the "consensus" holds sway. Countless examples of data being faked, taken out of context, viewed in simple isolation rather than as part of a complex whole, the vested interests, the non-sensical "solutions" that don't survive even cursory scrutiny.

Yes it's a scam. The most obvious scam imaginable. A scam as huge as the mystery that surrounds why so many buy into it.

Even if we all just say sure, human activity is increasing global temperatures (a massive, unsubstantiated beyond spaghetti code assumption) there are far better, cheaper, humane and socially just policies that could be deployed. If this really is an existential threat (as in a real threat as opposed to somebody invading some faggot's safe space) then of course we must all pull together to solve the problem with science and economic commitment and a determination to preserve a life worth living. Instead we hollow out the earth making crappy solar panels that don't even serve the purpose, crappy electric buggies that don't serve the purpose, we kill all the cows, eat the bugs, live in shoe boxes, shiver in winter and hand over our last pennies to the corporations.

While still finding the time to cheer for war.

Absolutely, our leaders are in this for our benefit, mine and yours. Who could ever doubt it?

Do most people want clean air, clean oceans, natural foods (instead of the processed shit that apparently isn't a threat), real healthcare (instead of vaccines that don't vaccinate)? I'm betting most do. Except, hilariously enough, those charged with saving us from global warming. It's a joke.

And I don't dismiss evidence. I read it and point out the glaring flaws. When evidence is so far from actual science it has no value. It's not me dismissing it, it's the charlatans who push it out in the service of politics and economics - but never science. What I've always wanted to see is the foremost alarmists sit in a room with scientists and debate this properly, in front of a global audience and on the record. But that transparency can never be allowed on such a public stage because the alarmist arguments are absurd and their science is compromised beyond all usefulness. And they know it.

So many are under the boot of authoritarians they can't even have a sensible discussion about public transport. So many things that could just be assumed or left to common sense have to be teased out in painstaking detail. Where did intelligence disappear to. Of course if you make public transport free you do a proper fucking job and double, treble, times ten the number of buses and routes. Compared to the trillions we are being urged to spend to save the world from ending let's just have a bus for every fucking person - way, way cheaper and people don't have to starve or freeze or have their property stolen.

The warmist nutters aren't looking for solutions. They are looking for bumper profits. You'd better get a hold of that idea soon, along with millions more, or we are all fucked. There is a threat, but it has nothing to do with the climate.