Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Climate change

dublinpilot wrote:

I’m curious. Which part of climate change do you believe is a scam?

Do you not believe that the climate is changing?

Or is it that you don’t believe that it’s changing because of human actions?
Or is it that you don’t believe that it’s within our power to change our activities to stop changing the climate?
Or do you just want to be allowed to continue as before irrespective of the consequences?
Or is it something else that you believe makes climate change a scam?

The climate has always changed. It always will. To claim we can control it is a fantasy. It used to be called global warming, then people realised the globe wasn’t warming but cooling so it became ‘climate change’.

Part of the change MAY be because of human actions but causing us to pay significantly more in taxes will NOT change anything. Carbon credits has to be the biggest scam out there. You pay huge amounts of money to bureaucrats who pmper their nests in the name of “environmentally friendliness”. Yeah, right…..

I don’t believe we will be able to change anything if the biggest polluters continue to do so, irrespective of what we do. All we end up doing is destroying our competitiveness and losing jobs, futures. We either accept that something needs to be done on a global basis or we don’t. But to say that the 1% of emissions caused in UK will be reduced to 0.1% and believe that this will “save the planet” is another delusion.

But the biggest scam is as I pointed out:

Our Elite are claiming the seas are rising yet buying up beach side properties. The same Elite are claiming we should stop flying on Holiday once a year whilst jetting around the globe. Once more, these Elite are demanding we eat less meat and be happy with insects whilst they have Kobe beef transported half way around the world. Sure, we should take note of what they say, right?

But I’m open minded. Please feel free to show me why increasing taxes is going to help……

Back in 1998, the Green Party in Germany used to have a demand that Petrol must cost at least DM5 a liter. It costs that earlier this year. Has the environment benefited? Or are a few companies making a killing?

But please, again, show me how this has helped with “climate change”…..

EDL*, Germany

@Steve6443 I occasionally walk past Bill Gates’ recently purchased beachside house…. It’s on notably low section of public beach, a nice stretch for walking if you’re in the area, and actually cost him $43M. He bought it from J Boone Pickens’ widow, the oil man, who is also Allen Paulson’s widow. She might just be an opportunist but anyway I’m trying for aviation content and once had dinner with Allen and company Bill G doubtless knows sea level has been slowly rising at a predictable rate since data has been taken, around 1860, and that the very slow rate of rise has been unaffected by much that’s happened along the way. It’s not an issue for his house in any reasonable timespan.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 05 Dec 18:42

But please, again, show me how this has helped with “climate change”…..

No thanks. I not interested in an argument. I was just genuinely wondering which bit you thought was a scam. You’ve answered that now. Thank you.

EIWT Weston, Ireland

“Do we know what the radioactive elements will become even in the short term of 100 years, far less 100,000 years?”

“Yes we do. We know the daughter products and half-lives of each.
Also the “hottest” radioactive materials are also the shortest lived.”

We know the daughter products and half-lifes in isolation. But in the reactor core waste the atoms are not only emitting radiation, but absorbing radiation from neighbour atoms. We do not know what is being produced.

Last Edited by Maoraigh at 05 Dec 22:23
Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

Maoraigh wrote:

We do not know what is being produced.

Mass spectrometry?

Mass spectrometry identifies a tiny sample. The fuel rods have many isotopes of many elements produced over their short working life. I don’t know how much detailed analysis of even one complete rod has been done.
Atoms will be capturing alpha particles, neutrons, etc in an unpredictably complex situation.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

Maoraigh wrote:

I don’t know how much detailed analysis of even one complete rod has been done.

Lots, even in the public domain.=

When Litvinenko was murdered, I recall reading a throwaway comment that it was possible to identify not only the reactor that had produced the Polonium that killed him, but the part of the reactor where it was produced. That said, I don’t know how well we understand the glasses that have been proposed to store nuclear waste.

Last Edited by kwlf at 07 Dec 01:57

And, more to the point, in light of current events, the alternative to nuclear power is, exactly what?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Steve6443 wrote:

It used to be called global warming, then people realised the globe wasn’t warming but cooling so it became ‘climate change’.

It is indisputable that the globe is warming. You just have to look at temperature data series. The facts, you know.

I would guess there are several reasons for preferring the term “climate change”. One is that there has been a common misunderstanding that the term “global warming” means that temperatures will uniformly rise everywhere on Earth and that every year must be warmer than the year before. Obviously, none of these are true. It is the trend of the average temperature on Earth that is increasing. Another reason could be to emphasise that global warming brings other effects than simply an increased temperature, such as different amount of precipitation which can – depending on the location on Earth – lead to either droughts or flooding where that didn’t happen before.

I don’t believe we will be able to change anything if the biggest polluters continue to do so, irrespective of what we do. All we end up doing is destroying our competitiveness and losing jobs, futures. We either accept that something needs to be done on a global basis or we don’t. But to say that the 1% of emissions caused in UK will be reduced to 0.1% and believe that this will “save the planet” is another delusion.

That’s true of course. I agree that something needs to be done on a global basis, but as we don’t have a world government it means that every individual country must do its share. 100 times 1% adds upp to 100%.

Our Elite are claiming the seas are rising yet buying up beach side properties. The same Elite are claiming we should stop flying on Holiday once a year whilst jetting around the globe. Once more, these Elite are demanding we eat less meat and be happy with insects whilst they have Kobe beef transported half way around the world. Sure, we should take note of what they say, right?

Well, if you take as a given that the idea of global warming/climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the “Elite” then I suppose you have a valid argument. If, on the other hand, global warming/climate change is real, then your observation amounts to absolutely nothing (except possibly showing that the “Elite” doesn’t have a whole lot of foresight). So basically you have a circular argument.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 07 Dec 09:54
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Airborne_Again wrote:

If, on the other hand, global warming/climate change is real, then your observation amounts to absolutely nothing (except possibly showing that the “Elite” doesn’t have a whole lot of foresight).

There is also another way of looking at “the elite’s” seaside properties.

I remember seeing an interview with Bill Gates a number of years ago. He was on a super yacht at the time. He had rented it for a weeks holiday.

He was asked why he didn’t have a super yacht of his own and instead had to rent one. His answer was that the week’s rental cost him $5M. He only wanted it for a week. And by renting he was avoiding the year long hassle of maintaining and staffing it. So for him $5M for one week was good value.

Compare that to the $43M Silvaire quoted for BG’s beachfront property and it doesn’t seem that bad. If he uses it for 2 weeks a year, for 5 years (and he’s going to get way more than 5 years out of it) it seem pretty good value to him.

The simple fact of the matter is that people like him can afford to drop $43M on something that they really want, even if it will be lost in a couple of decades.

EIWT Weston, Ireland
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top