Climate myths

[wanton dwarf]

I've seen the issues in passing about the WHO treaty & can confirm that they are in the Zero Draft

Climate Change
Rewilding
Land Use

Which is here:

https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb4/A_INB4_3-en.pdf

 

[Dave645]

Read what I've said above. India and China are building a lot more coal fired stations so they either couldn't care less or know it's a lie.

What broken logic you employ, so the only 2 conclusions you can draw, support your thinking.
what about the real reason they built them?
They had the coal, coal power was fast and cheap, and they needed electric, they had dispensation, because they argued that the first world had, had there coal power eras, and blocking the third world from doing, what we have done, and Germany is still was doing, was going to be impossible and unfair.
Yet China also has the biggest adoption rate for renewables in fact they installed more in one year than the us had done to that point.

So at no point is either of your conclusions even in the ball park, of being correct.
That’s just looking for justification to your opinion.

I also note you never supply links to your facts, which usually means that you don’t do first hand research more Facebook, YouTube, only a few website that agree with you.

are you a member of the flat earth society by any chance, what’s your take on that?

 

[Dave645]

Just watch the video if you are interested

Whilst none of us can claim any of the video is 100% the truth, the points they make are significant enough not to be ignored.

A lot of which I thought were significant many years ago.

Why is there any "Blame" ? Who cares who is to "Blame" for anything - the question is if there is cause for alarm or if the current temperatures are in any way unnatural or hyperbole.

Temperatures & CO2 levels are both natural & well within Earth limits - whereas temperature readings used by alarmists relate mostly to urban areas.

Doubt is a game you all play, you like it you thrive in it. Its a pity that there is no escaping the debates ultimate conclusion, I think that they will start climate taxes, at some point, I will be ready, because I know I need to be, so you enjoy your doubt, it will cost you in the end.
The pity this debate will also comes at an escalating long term cost we cannot afford, wasting time to debate the issue, Is bumping up the cost to fix the unfolding tragedy to come.
Its already started and yet we are still debate it like, it has no consequences to do so.

 

[Dave645]

I've seen the issues in passing about the WHO treaty & can confirm that they are in the Zero Draft

Climate Change
Rewilding
Land Use

Which is here:

https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb4/A_INB4_3-en.pdf

View attachment 1171192

The point of you sharing this on this thread is lost on me, care to explain?

 

[Cowabunga]

What broken logic you employ, so the only 2 conclusions you can draw, support your thinking.
what about the real reason they built them?
They had the coal, coal power was fast and cheap, and they needed electric, they had dispensation, because they argued that the first world had, had there coal power eras, and blocking the third world from doing, what we have done, and Germany is still was doing, was going to be impossible and unfair.
Yet China also has the biggest adoption rate for renewables in fact they installed more in one year than the us had done to that point.

So at no point is either of your conclusions even in the ball park, of being correct.
That’s just looking for justification to your opinion.

I also note you never supply links to your facts, which usually means that you don’t do first hand research more Facebook, YouTube, only a few website that agree with you.

are you a member of the flat earth society by any chance, what’s your take on that?

Neither India nor China are ‘third world’ economies. Both are extremely rich and nuclear weapon armed. China could just as well build nuclear power stations, just as they do for themselves to a limited extent and for other nations worldwide. Yet they are building far more coal fired power stations regardless. Germany were big in nuclear until the ‘Greens’ gained enough power to stop it and shut the generators down, making them reliant on fossil fuel energy from Russia with the consequences we are now familiar with.

 

[Bogweevil]

I disagree, it's a proven fact the WHO, who can't be elected or unelected and want a dictatorship and tell world countries what to do over medical matters. It was once considered conspiracy theory nonsense and supposedly debunked. It's now fact.

I totally disagree I've dived straight into conspiracy theories, I've done my homework.

There is no evidence that WHO treaty will force countries to impose lockdowns, mass vaccination and all the other things bandied about in the press:

Will the WHO be given the power to impose restrictive measures?

Recent reports have highlighted concerns that the WHO may be given powers to impose certain restrictive measures such as lockdowns, mandatory quarantines, or mandatory vaccines.
The proposed treaty does not currently have any provisions for such measures, nor grant the WHO such powers.

When asked during a Parliamentary debate whether the UK Government could give assurances that the UK would not accede sovereignty and power to the WHO,51 the Government Minister (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) said:

Yes, absolutely I can. The speculation that somehow the instrument will undermine UK sovereignty and give WHO powers over national public health measures is simply not the case. I absolutely reassure both my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), who raised a similar issue earlier, on behalf of all their constituents: that is not the case. The UK remains in control of any future domestic decisions about public health matters—such as domestic vaccination—that might be needed in any future pandemic that we may have to manage. Protecting those national sovereign rights is a distinct principle in the existing draft text. … that is absolutely not the case.

Loading…

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk

 

[snarling bee]

72 m

What maths planet are you on.
28/360 is 0.078 which is 3 inches

 

[Dave645]

Neither India nor China are ‘third world’ economies. Both are extremely rich and nuclear weapon armed. China could just as well build nuclear power stations, just as they do for themselves to a limited extent and for other nations worldwide. Yet they are building far more coal fired power stations regardless. Germany were big in nuclear until the ‘Greens’ gained enough power to stop it and shut the generators down, making them reliant on fossil fuel energy from Russia with the consequences we are now familiar with.

tell that to their populations, some didn't have mains power 25 years ago, they built to use what they had abundant resources to use for power just like we did.
China has had lots of population that did not have power, India was nowhere in the late 1990's with the same problems large areas with zero utilities.
so, they may now not be third world, but that's a combination of growth and cheap labour, that rich nations have taken advantage of we paid them to make our stuff, we gave them the money, they now have because of short sighted government choices.

I will agree I would have liked them to do better, but the reality that China the worst offender is actually ahead of its Paris agreement targets, can everyone else that signed up say the same?
they haven't got bogged down in debate they are the fastest adopter of the transition on the planet, it's said we have seen their peak emissions, and if their investment keeps up, they will meet their targets early.

the people using them to procrastinate will soon find they cannot do so. we need to stop looking at what others, are or, are not doing, and get on with what we agreed to do.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Doubt is a game you all play, you like it you thrive in it. Its a pity that there is no escaping the debates ultimate conclusion, I think that they will start climate taxes, at some point, I will be ready, because I know I need to be, so you enjoy your doubt, it will cost you in the end.
The pity this debate will also comes at an escalating long term cost we cannot afford, wasting time to debate the issue, Is bumping up the cost to fix the unfolding tragedy to come.
Its already started and yet we are still debate it like, it has no consequences to do so.

Climate Taxes have been introduced YEARS ago

Do you think the recent inflation was just the Ukraine War ?

EU Carbon Credit Market was almost 1 Trillion Euros a few years ago, paid for by poor people giving to rich politicians. Carbon Taxes are on ALL fossil fuels used in Energy - that's why "Renewables" are supposedly cheaper - because Carbon Credits don't have to be bought.

 

[Dave645]

Climate Taxes have been introduced YEARS ago

Do you think the recent inflation was just the Ukraine War ?

EU Carbon Credit Market was almost 1 Trillion Euros a few years ago, paid for by poor people giving to rich politicians. Carbon Taxes are on ALL fossil fuels used in Energy - that's why "Renewables" are supposedly cheaper - because Carbon Credits don't have to be bought.

I agree some of inflation was tax but most was our reliance on fossil fuel (gas) for energy, tax is a way to fund a transition, tax goes to governments they are all skint so, i see no direction but up for taxes, and of those taxes will have better outcomes than what you seem to maybe want us to do. . .
and you're deliberately missing my point, climate taxes are just starting.
If you think they are bad now then just wait and see.
what is the cost to us, if sea levels rise 50cm? or more.
and if we were part of the problem not the solution, do you want that liability? liability will be imposed by international pressure if we backtrack.

i always assume you want to unwind the transition and taxes and go back to fossil fuels?

maybe I have got your position wrong so, I will admit I am not sure what you actually want, if you had all the power to change how the Uk did things, for the next 30 years.
clear that one up for me. blank slate what do you want us to do different than we are?

is climate a problem? do you want to do anything to reduce what may happen with the climate? and then lay out what we should do economically, like go back to how it was in the 1980's Uk maybe? coal power and all that, cars doing 25 miles per gallon etc etc.

I see no other coarse than the one we are on, but you don't so, it would be great if you can explain how yours will be better, and how it will work, and its goals on major topics.

 

[wanton dwarf]

I agree some of inflation was tax but most was our reliance on fossil fuel (gas) for energy, tax is a way to fund a transition, tax goes to governments they are all skint so, i see no direction but up for taxes

Skint ? How many new policies have they created ?

£5+ Billion they recently gave SERCO run by Rupert Soames brother of MP Nicholas Soames to "House Immigrants" and counting

I don't know if we have current figures anywhere but this 2020-2021 will do as an example of HGM incompetance & corruption - Covid "Job retention" which didn't need to happen for those under 50 who were fit & healthy. HMG knew & stated those were not at risk BUT didn't even try to keep the economy running.

Lots of self harm from the useless set, nothing will change until the incompetant set are removed, perminantly.

Much of the changes by "Government Services" remain today, with health especially no longer providing services they used to.

 

[wanton dwarf]

If you think they are bad now then just wait and see.
what is the cost to us, if sea levels rise 50cm? or more.

Sea level rise has been pretty much the same for the past 10,000 years as the world gets warmer, as has continental drift rise & fall.

It's all fear & loathing to justify a few people getting immensely rich & powerful.

There is NO MISTAKE that agencies such as the UN, WEF, EU etc are developing these policies because none of them are elected. Just look at the draconian authoritarian ideology being pushed.

We don't need any of these self serving over paid idiots.

 

[Dave645]

Skint ? How many new policies have they created ?

£5+ Billion they recently gave SERCO run by Rupert Soames brother of MP Nicholas Soames to "House Immigrants" and counting

I don't know if we have current figures anywhere but this 2020-2021 will do as an example of HGM incompetance & corruption - Covid "Job retention" which didn't need to happen for those under 50 who were fit & healthy. HMG knew & stated those were not at risk BUT didn't even try to keep the economy running.

Lots of self harm from the useless set, nothing will change until the incompetant set are removed, perminantly.

Much of the changes by "Government Services" remain today, with health especially no longer providing services they used to.

View attachment 1171409

They are still skint, you always make some point about someone getting rich, and as taxes go to the government who is that is getting rich from tax?
Most of the world is running on national debt, money is not real anymore it’s a fiction, all that really matters is stability, and that includes climate.

 

[Dave645]

Sea level rise has been pretty much the same for the past 10,000 years as the world gets warmer, as has continental drift rise & fall.

It's all fear & loathing to justify a few people getting immensely rich & powerful.

There is NO MISTAKE that agencies such as the UN, WEF, EU etc are developing these policies because none of them are elected. Just look at the draconian authoritarian ideology being pushed.

We don't need any of these self serving over paid idiots.

Yours and my interpretation of rises is different, in the last 10,000 years it has risen 40 meters.
Putting that aside sea level rises have been on an accelerated curve upwards, but even if they do not get faster, rises, 225mm ish by the end of the century and with no current predictions saying ice caps melting will slow down but the opening I think that 225mm is a good minimum to use.
what is the estimayted cost of just that small rise?

https://assets.publishing.service.g...b5653b/Future_of_the_sea_-_sea_level_rise.pdf

that should help you start, a low rise 250-500mm will effect 180,000 Ha of farm land. In the uk alone.
And the knock on of that, it’s endless. And that’s the best case one we have nearly already missed, never mind what it will be in 2100.

If we get to 860mm by 2100 it’s about 14 trillion per year world wide. per year. . . not one off costs.
There is a lot of skin in the game, that your happy to play down as a scam.

 

[Top Tip.]

View attachment 1171414View attachment 1171415

Yours and my interpretation of rises is different, in the last 10,000 years it has risen 40 meters.
Putting that aside sea level rises have been on an accelerated curve upwards, but even if they do not get faster, rises, 225mm ish by the end of the century and with no current predictions saying ice caps melting will slow down but the opening I think that 225mm is a good minimum to use.
what is the estimayted cost of just that small rise?

https://assets.publishing.service.g...b5653b/Future_of_the_sea_-_sea_level_rise.pdf

that should help you start, a low rise 250-500mm will effect 180,000 Ha of farm land. In the uk alone.
And the knock on of that, it’s endless. And that’s the best case one we have nearly already missed, never mind what it will be in 2100.

If we get to 860mm by 2100 it’s about 14 trillion per year world wide. per year. . . not one off costs.
There is a lot of skin in the game, that your happy to play down as a scam.

I would love to know how and where they take their measurements. There’s absolutely no discernible difference in sea levels on the west coast of Scotland the area which I know best and I would imagine this would relate to most of the planet as well.

 

[wanton dwarf]

They are still skint, you always make some point about someone getting rich, and as taxes go to the government who is that is getting rich from tax?
Most of the world is running on national debt, money is not real anymore it’s a fiction, all that really matters is stability, and that includes climate.

£400+ Billion was spent during covid, £Billions were spent on a mobile application which was useless

As a programmer I really cannot understand how so much can be spent on a program to run on a phone ? How can you spend £Billions on a few people bashing a keybooard to a run a mobile phone that doesn't have that much memory - even the best computer games cost a few hundred million which take many years & involve actors

This is corruption on a massive scale - never mind the PPE etc

Does amaze me how people are so eaily controlled

 

[wanton dwarf]

all that really matters is stability

You better look up the concept of "Market disruption" - that concept is used to destroy established markets usually using some kind of social or regulation to backup social change

Vegetarian milk is a good example - renewable energy fits the bill as well - regulation & taxes destroying established businesses because governments, NGOs & Billionaires say so

Red Tractor fits the bill as well, it doesn't do anything other than create a new monopoly & profiteer from the resultant chaos not only for their business model but also for those controlling that business model - ordinary people call this a SCAM

 

[essex man]

They are still skint, you always make some point about someone getting rich, and as taxes go to the government who is that is getting rich from tax?
Most of the world is running on national debt, money is not real anymore it’s a fiction, all that really matters is stability, and that includes climate.

Money is not real?
You don't understand the financial system do you?
Why doesn't the government just hand out a million pounds to every citizen?
It would def be ahead in the polls!
Your grasp of the financial system seems to be as much on error as your appraisal of climate issues

 

[Bogweevil]

I've seen the issues in passing about the WHO treaty & can confirm that they are in the Zero Draft

Climate Change
Rewilding
Land Use

Which is here:

https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb4/A_INB4_3-en.pdf

View attachment 1171192

Tis only the draft. I tarose form an initiative proposed in part by a certain Boris Johnson, which may be enough to damn it in some people's eyes, after the shambolic response to COVID 19.

Like it or not most countries have already signed treaties to address the causes of climate change, so no change there.

Land use change/biodiversity loss does not mean rewilding - in the context of infectious diseases changes in these factors affecyts the likelihood of more human-wildlife contact so that, say monkey viruses may get in to people more often as jungles are cleared. There is an intention to address that, but not a secret plan to broadly rewild populated areas.

According to the UK parliament the treaty intends to:

The main goal of this treaty would be to foster an all of government and all of
society approach, strengthening national, regional and global capacities and
resilience to future pandemics. This includes greatly enhancing international
co-operation to improve, for example, alert systems, data-sharing, research
and local, regional and global production and distribution of medical and
public health counter-measures such as vaccines, medicines, diagnostics and
personal protective equipment.

I expect the vaccine part will upset the usual parties but in truth vaccines remain the safest most cost effective way of managing infectious diseases and have done to 150 years.

 

[oval]