So can anyone explain how as claimed by the priests of Net Zero, mass deployment of so-called renewable energy is going to bring down the price of energy?
Mainly because, renewable energy, once established doesn't cost much,
Just ask people that have gone off grid, after the initial outlay,the energy is virtually free.
Initially the infrastructure will need updating, so investment will be needed.
One of the problems, is we haven't had an energy policy. The libs were too oriented to business as usual, if we'd started think about what would be needed 10 years ago, thinks would be easier now.
Commercial interest were crying out for an energy policy, if they'd had one, there'd have been a lot more infrastructure already.
Apart from having to build 2 comparable sized generation systems ,one that works sometimes and the other reliable one switched on when the system fails.You have to pay for both .
Why is it that wherever a penetration of renewables go the cost of power goes up ? Is it just coincidence.
As far as I can figure out, the cost of energy is not down to a set of simple calculations and is more than just the presence of renewables in the market. For sure, as Decrepit said, there are fixed capital costs to due to infrastructure requirements and upgrades. Nuclear power struggles a bit in this regard, as well as renewables.
Second, there is the cost of the fuel itself. Given the amount of uranium we in the ground, this should be a good option, but then again we have a stack of LNG and look what happened on the East Coast a few years ago.
Conversely, renewables, provide a low cost fuel, offset initially by the increased infrastructure costs. I hope continued developments in the technology and costs of storing energy will increase this advantage further. Who knows, we might get a handle on nuclear fusion and make the whole thing a moot point for our grandchildren.
The final cost is the one I suspect is muddying the waters and also alludes to Decrepit's point. Successive Government's murky mess of policy choices and in/decision with its subset of subsidies to both industry and consumers makes it difficult for anyone to plan ahead with surety. Long term projects don't like risk, and thus they price accordingly. Government policy that is bipartisan, clear, and firm in its resolve would reduce risk and energy costs accordingly.
Select to expand quoteRango said..
Apart from having to build 2 comparable sized generation systems ,one that works sometimes and the other reliable one switched on when the system fails.You have to pay for both .
Why is it that wherever a penetration of renewables go the cost of power goes up ? Is it just coincidence.
No such thing as "just coincidence" in the absence of another evidence based explanation. Viz. COVID-19 proximal natural origin propaganda.
Another pillar of faith in the Climate Change Cult's (CCC) fear mongering propaganda, the hypothesised stalling or reversal of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), also put into B -grade Hollywood disaster movies for extra dramatic effect on the CC Cult Faithful, proves to be nothing to worry about whatsoever:
www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-55297-5
Just like the arctic summer sea ice claims based on flawed computer modelling that were shown to be untrue by time itself, yet more fear porn from the BBC proves to be nothing but hot air - again!
www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66289494
STATE fear porn website, the BBC, rode to the rescue of their reputation which is in the gutter, despite many sceptics calling it out:
www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn938ze4yyeo
Point is, the BBC keeps running these stories to stoke false fears in the alleged effects of "Climate Change". Why?
Where's fangman to complain about the BBC's bull dust reporting when we need him?
The BBC seems to be a big fan of publishing inconclusive PSEUDOSCIENCE.
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..
Mainly because, renewable energy, once established doesn't cost much,
Just ask people that have gone off grid, after the initial outlay,the energy is virtually free.
Initially the infrastructure will need updating, so investment will be needed.
One of the problems, is we haven't had an energy policy. The libs were too oriented to business as usual, if we'd started think about what would be needed 10 years ago, thinks would be easier now.
Commercial interest were crying out for an energy policy, if they'd had one, there'd have been a lot more infrastructure already.
I'm a big supporter of being energy independent and "off-grid", but how and when is it going to bring down the cost of energy on the grid as promised by the priests of the Climate Change Cult?
Select to expand quotefangman said..
As far as I can figure out, the cost of energy is not down to a set of simple calculations and is more than just the presence of renewables in the market. For sure, as Decrepit said, there are fixed capital costs to due to infrastructure requirements and upgrades. Nuclear power struggles a bit in this regard, as well as renewables.
Second, there is the cost of the fuel itself. Given the amount of uranium we in the ground, this should be a good option, but then again we have a stack of LNG and look what happened on the East Coast a few years ago.
Conversely, renewables, provide a low cost fuel, offset initially by the increased infrastructure costs. I hope continued developments in the technology and costs of storing energy will increase this advantage further. Who knows, we might get a handle on nuclear fusion and make the whole thing a moot point for our grandchildren.
The final cost is the one I suspect is muddying the waters and also alludes to Decrepit's point. Successive Government's murky mess of policy choices and in/decision with its subset of subsidies to both industry and consumers makes it difficult for anyone to plan ahead with surety. Long term projects don't like risk, and thus they price accordingly. Government policy that is bipartisan, clear, and firm in its resolve would reduce risk and energy costs accordingly.
For sure, but how and when is the cost of energy on the grid going to come down as promised by the priests of the Climate Change Cult? They literally claimed that mass deployment of renewables will drive costs down. How and when will this occur, according to you bro?
Select to expand quotepeacenlove said..decrepit said..
Mainly because, renewable energy, once established doesn't cost much,
Just ask people that have gone off grid, after the initial outlay,the energy is virtually free.
Initially the infrastructure will need updating, so investment will be needed.
One of the problems, is we haven't had an energy policy. The libs were too oriented to business as usual, if we'd started think about what would be needed 10 years ago, thinks would be easier now.
Commercial interest were crying out for an energy policy, if they'd had one, there'd have been a lot more infrastructure already.
I'm a big supporter of being energy independent and "off-grid", but how and when is it going to bring down the cost of energy on the grid as promised by the priests of the Climate Change Cult?
Off grid with diesel generators ,gas bottles to cook, but you can burn wood to keep warm ,thats renewable .Do off griders drive EVs ? Non of them are net zero.Most ordinary people can't afford to set up these pv battery systems with back up generation ,and thats the point.
Plus ,a home is not a grid system which is a completely different kettle of fish.
Yeah agreed. There's plenty of people living so-called off-grid but then they drive expensive environment-destroying EV's. Hypocrisy.
Off grid is fine as a lifestyle, but most well-to-dos do it in such a way that calling it environmentally sensitive or respectful of "Net Zero" is a joke.
Truly off grid would first involve an acceptance that many modern conveniences and power hungry devices such as induction hot plates and German electric ovens are just not feasible. Get an Aga and burn some wood or charcoal. Now that's sustainable and low impact. Even natural gas is a better choice.
Select to expand quotepeacenlove said..
Another pillar of faith in the Climate Change Cult's (CCC) fear mongering propaganda, the hypothesised stalling or reversal of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), also put into B -grade Hollywood disaster movies for extra dramatic effect on the CC Cult Faithful, proves to be nothing to worry about whatsoever:
www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-55297-5
Just like the arctic summer sea ice claims based on flawed computer modelling that were shown to be untrue by time itself, yet more fear porn from the BBC proves to be nothing but hot air - again!
www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66289494
STATE fear porn website, the BBC, rode to the rescue of their reputation which is in the gutter, despite many sceptics calling it out:
www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn938ze4yyeo
Point is, the BBC keeps running these stories to stoke false fears in the alleged effects of "Climate Change". Why?
Where's fangman to complain about the BBC's bull dust reporting when we need him?
The BBC seems to be a big fan of publishing inconclusive PSEUDOSCIENCE.
The ice is thinner. The north-west passage opens every summer. The Greenland ice cap is melting. And here you are denying global warming and throwing around accusations of "PSEUDOSCIENCE".
You're hanging around the wrong websites sucking up bull****. Get a critical clue ffs.
Select to expand quoteGasHazard said..peacenlove said..
Another pillar of faith in the Climate Change Cult's (CCC) fear mongering propaganda, the hypothesised stalling or reversal of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), also put into B -grade Hollywood disaster movies for extra dramatic effect on the CC Cult Faithful, proves to be nothing to worry about whatsoever:
www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-55297-5
Just like the arctic summer sea ice claims based on flawed computer modelling that were shown to be untrue by time itself, yet more fear porn from the BBC proves to be nothing but hot air - again!
www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66289494
STATE fear porn website, the BBC, rode to the rescue of their reputation which is in the gutter, despite many sceptics calling it out:
www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn938ze4yyeo
Point is, the BBC keeps running these stories to stoke false fears in the alleged effects of "Climate Change". Why?
Where's fangman to complain about the BBC's bull dust reporting when we need him?
The BBC seems to be a big fan of publishing inconclusive PSEUDOSCIENCE.
The ice is thinner. The north-west passage opens every summer. The Greenland ice cap is melting. And here you are denying global warming and throwing around accusations of "PSEUDOSCIENCE".
You're hanging around the wrong websites sucking up bull****. Get a critical clue ffs.
Global warming / cooling are totally natural cycles. I never denied either. Does mankind's emissions contribute - yes. Do these emissions contribute so much as to lead to the catastrophes claimed by the Climate Change Cult - no evidence of that whatsoever.
We were told by "expert" "climate researchers" that:
a) using models in 2007, the summer polar ice would be zero by 2012 due to "global warming" and "climate change" - that was false in reality. You say the ice is thinner - yes that's true - but is the arctic ice free in summer as claimed by the priests of the Climate Change Cult in 2007 - no.
b) we were told many times that the AMOC could be an indicator of irreversible catastrophic climate events - all due to "global warming" and "climate change" - that is false in reality - as no such major changes have occurred as per the above studies.
C) we were told by CCC Priest Flannery that our east coast dams would be empty over 15 years ago - this was false in reality.
d) we were told that the barrier reef corals were in terminal decline due to mass bleaching due to "global warming" and "climate change" - this was false in reality.
e) we are now warned that the oceans are quote "boiling" due to "global warming" and "climate change" - this is utter nonsense PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC propaganda.
^^ This is the real bull dust - and you're telling me to "get a clue"?
It has nothing to do with what news we're reading - the above is reality - it can be denied or accepted as truth.
Utter bollocks again.
THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS published in 2008.
journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bams2370_1.xml
How many times do you have to be shown you are incorrect before you start double-checking that you are almost incessantly posting malarkey with side of rhubarb pie?
Which of the above points in my previous post a, b, c, d, or, e are false?
"Utter bollocks" as you claim?
Address the question directly if you can.
Should be easy if it's "utter bollocks".
Select to expand quotepeacenlove said..GasHazard said..peacenlove said..
Another pillar of faith in the Climate Change Cult's (CCC) fear mongering propaganda, the hypothesised stalling or reversal of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), also put into B -grade Hollywood disaster movies for extra dramatic effect on the CC Cult Faithful, proves to be nothing to worry about whatsoever:
www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-55297-5
Just like the arctic summer sea ice claims based on flawed computer modelling that were shown to be untrue by time itself, yet more fear porn from the BBC proves to be nothing but hot air - again!
www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66289494
STATE fear porn website, the BBC, rode to the rescue of their reputation which is in the gutter, despite many sceptics calling it out:
www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn938ze4yyeo
Point is, the BBC keeps running these stories to stoke false fears in the alleged effects of "Climate Change". Why?
Where's fangman to complain about the BBC's bull dust reporting when we need him?
The BBC seems to be a big fan of publishing inconclusive PSEUDOSCIENCE.
The ice is thinner. The north-west passage opens every summer. The Greenland ice cap is melting. And here you are denying global warming and throwing around accusations of "PSEUDOSCIENCE".
You're hanging around the wrong websites sucking up bull****. Get a critical clue ffs.
Global warming / cooling are totally natural cycles. I never denied either. Does mankind's emissions contribute - yes. Do these emissions contribute so much as to lead to the catastrophes claimed by the Climate Change Cult - no evidence of that whatsoever.
We were told by "expert" "climate researchers" that:
a) using models in 2007, the summer polar ice would be zero by 2012 due to "global warming" and "climate change" - that was false in reality. You say the ice is thinner - yes that's true - but is the arctic ice free in summer as claimed by the priests of the Climate Change Cult in 2007 - no.
b) we were told many times that the AMOC could be an indicator of irreversible catastrophic climate events - all due to "global warming" and "climate change" - that is false in reality - as no such major changes have occurred as per the above studies.
C) we were told by CCC Priest Flannery that our east coast dams would be empty over 15 years ago - this was false in reality.
d) we were told that the barrier reef corals were in terminal decline due to mass bleaching due to "global warming" and "climate change" - this was false in reality.
e) we are now warned that the oceans are quote "boiling" due to "global warming" and "climate change" - this is utter nonsense PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC propaganda.
^^ This is the real bull dust - and you're telling me to "get a clue"?
It has nothing to do with what news we're reading - the above is reality - it can be denied or accepted as truth.
100%... so much doomsday rubbish being pushed down our throats.
Net zero is a scam, a wealth redistribution scam, how can anyone think otherwise when emissions continue to climb globally because China and India etc are burning coal at unprecedented rates.
I don't know how anyone can tell someone else to get a critical clue ffs when they are just choosing to ignore the biggest emitters in the world.
Net zero is a scam.
100% it's a scam, yet so many citizens regularly suspend critical thinking to defend the un defendable - even when it hurts them financially, reduces their freedom to choose through regulation and red tape, creates a false scarcity and demonises the most important element of life on Earth
Carbon = life on earth.
Get it?
Fill in the blank - a "war on carbon" is a war on _ _ _ _ itself.
Will fangman tag your post as "utter bollocks"?. Who knows?
Select to expand quotepeacenlove said..
Does mankind's emissions contribute - yes. Do these emissions contribute so much as to lead to the catastrophes claimed by the Climate Change Cult - no evidence of that whatsoever.
Well I agree there's no evidence of a catastrophic level of climate change being on the horizon. But the consensus of the scientific theories is yes.
But we won't have to rely on scientific theories. Just wait and see. We're averaging a rise of about 2.5 ppm each year. Despite the looming target of net zero there's no sign yet of the rate of increase reducing.
There's a bit of scatter, even in the well-mixed air blowing over Hawaii. The Wednesday reading was 5ppm above the reading this time last year!
www.co2.earth/daily-co2
Feb. 5, 2025 427.44 ppm Feb. 2, 2024 422.21 ppm 1 Year Change 5.23 ppm (1.24%)
Select to expand quotepeacenlove said..
Which of the above points in my previous post a, b, c, d, or, e are false?
"Utter bollocks" as you claim?
Address the question directly if you can.
Should be easy if it's "utter bollocks".
archive.org/details/1974_20210403
CIA made a special report on global cooling /climate change in 1974.Pushing fear for control no doubt.
Yeah.
Whilst page 7 I've found interesting amongst others in that famous report ("the world's snow and ice cover have increased 10-15%), I'm not clear on the relevance of the 1970's cooling scare has to the five points of fact in my previous a post above about claims made by various Climate Change Cultists, nor how fangman can claim with such disrespect for my contributions, that my post is "utter bollocks". Still it does neatly remind us of previous Sam's and doomsday propaganda so we can better defend from real utter bollocks when it strikes again.
Still waiting for his reply, but i imagine it's not forthcoming because the facts speak for themselves i guess.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..peacenlove said..
Does mankind's emissions contribute - yes. Do these emissions contribute so much as to lead to the catastrophes claimed by the Climate Change Cult - no evidence of that whatsoever.
Well I agree there's no evidence of a catastrophic level of climate change being on the horizon. But the consensus of the scientific theories is yes.
But we won't have to rely on scientific theories. Just wait and see. We're averaging a rise of about 2.5 ppm each year. Despite the looming target of net zero there's no sign yet of the rate of increase reducing.
There's a bit of scatter, even in the well-mixed air blowing over Hawaii. The Wednesday reading was 5ppm above the reading this time last year!
www.co2.earth/daily-co2
Feb. 5, 2025 427.44 ppm Feb. 2, 2024 422.21 ppm 1 Year Change 5.23 ppm (1.24%)
"scientific theories" - 100%
and that's all it is - just a theory without much substance
time seems to prove most of the theory wrong too - especially the dodgy computer modelling and hysterical claims by cultists
most scientific research leads to something inconclusive - hence the need for more scientific research
whereas the Net Zero Climate Change Cult wants us to believe that "the science is settled" and "there's a consensus" - which again is truly - utter bollocks
One big thing that the Net Zero Cultists don't want to talk about is the Earth's ability to find equilibrium.
Put more CO2 into the atmosphere - plants and algae grow to compensate and balance.
The NZ Cultists wants us to believe that as the inputs rise, the result is just warming and no corresponding countermeasures by Mother Earth.
Which is in fangman' s words - utter bollocks.
Select to expand quotepeacenlove said..
Yeah.
Whilst page 7 I've found interesting amongst others in that famous report ("the world's snow and ice cover have increased 10-15%), I'm not clear on the relevance of the 1970's cooling scare has to the five points of fact in my previous a post above about claims made by various Climate Change Cultists, nor how fangman can claim with such disrespect for my contributions, that my post is "utter bollocks". Still it does neatly remind us of previous Sam's and doomsday propaganda so we can better defend from real utter bollocks when it strikes again.
Still waiting for his reply, but i imagine it's not forthcoming because the facts speak for themselves i guess.
I am not sure if I can be bothered with this whack a mole of misinformation. I think I will leave it to someone else for a while.
Bring back Remery, he has more stamina than me. As a last hurrah for a while: the fine detail as to why the post was classified as bollocks.
A) Bollocks: we have already covered this. Climate science is not the same as it was almost twenty years ago. Neither was CRISPR, Quantum Computing, AI, mobile phones. No one expects Crazy Frog to still be a hit today. Things evolve. Keep up.
B) Bollocks. Warning of a forthcoming collapse of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation
www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-39810-w It is true that the AMOC has been stable for the last few decades, however as the corporates money peeps love to say, past performance is not an indicator of future returns. This is Induction, or Hume's Problem. The collapse of the AMOC or not, is the poster boy of "Uniformitarianism in Science" fallacy. I will leave you to look them up.
C) Bollocks. see point A. Climate predictions are inherently complex and based on the best available data at the time. Science keeps moving on despite systems that are not the simple binary propositions the 30second media prefers, they are complex.
D) Bollocks. GBR Bleaching events. 2002, 2016, 2017, 2020, and 2022. These events have led to varying degrees of coral mortality across different regions of the reef. Some corals do it better than others. A 2025 study focusing on the southern GBR reported that by July 2024, 44% of the bleached coral colonies had died, with some species experiencing mortality rates as high as 95%. ?
E)Bollocks. Denialists use hyperbole and inflammatory language as a routine tool. Look at your use of 'hysterical'. I don't think I have ever seen a bona-fide piece of research or scientist that is hysterical. In fact, they tend to be the opposite.
F) Bollocks. Elon's Water engine.
Grand total: Utter Bollocks,
(with apologies to Gas Hazard for commandeering his term)
Select to expand quotefangman said..I am not sure if I can be bothered with this whack a mole of misinformationpeacenlove said..
Yeah.
Whilst page 7 I've found interesting amongst others in that famous report ("the world's snow and ice cover have increased 10-15%), I'm not clear on the relevance of the 1970's cooling scare has to the five points of fact in my previous a post above about claims made by various Climate Change Cultists, nor how fangman can claim with such disrespect for my contributions, that my post is "utter bollocks". Still it does neatly remind us of previous Sam's and doomsday propaganda so we can better defend from real utter bollocks when it strikes again.
Still waiting for his reply, but i imagine it's not forthcoming because the facts speak for themselves i guess.
. I think I will leave it to someone else for a while.
Bring back Remery, he has more stamina than me. As a last hurrah for a while: the fine detail as to why the post was classified as bollocks.
A) Bollocks: we have already covered this. Climate science is not the same as it was almost twenty years ago. Neither was CRISPR, Quantum Computing, AI, mobile phones. No one expects Crazy Frog to still be a hit today. Things evolve. Keep up.
B) Bollocks. Warning of a forthcoming collapse of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation
www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-39810-w It is true that the AMOC has been stable for the last few decades, however as the corporates money peeps love to say, past performance is not an indicator of future returns. This is Induction, or Hume's Problem. The collapse of the AMOC or not, is the poster boy of "Uniformitarianism in Science" fallacy. I will leave you to look them up.
C) Bollocks. see point A. Climate predictions are inherently complex and based on the best available data at the time. Science keeps moving on despite systems that are not the simple binary propositions the 30second media prefers, they are complex.
D) Bollocks. GBR Bleaching events. 2002, 2016, 2017, 2020, and 2022. These events have led to varying degrees of coral mortality across different regions of the reef. Some corals do it better than others. A 2025 study focusing on the southern GBR reported that by July 2024, 44% of the bleached coral colonies had died, with some species experiencing mortality rates as high as 95%. ?
E)Bollocks. Denialists use hyperbole and inflammatory language as a routine tool. Look at your use of 'hysterical'. I don't think I have ever seen a bona-fide piece of research or scientist that is hysterical. In fact, they tend to be the opposite.
F) Bollocks. Elon's Water engine.
Grand total: Utter Bollocks,
(with apologies to Gas Hazard for commandeering his term)
.but you'll have a crack anyway..
Totally missing the point fangman. My point was that we are told by lying politicians, industry mouthpieces, so-called experts and downright propaganda merchants that these were looming catastrophes - as if they were certainties.
None of them actually took place as warned.
Your voluminous post doesn't alter any of the truth that the scaremongering is a great part of the problem we face with the CLimate Change Cult priests, and their loyal citizen-defenders only make the problem worse.
For example your response to my point e) is ridiculous. Antonio Guterres, the UN Sec. Gen. made the statement in a press conference that we are now facing quote "global boiling and boiling oceans", but you fail to check:
Antonio Guterres:
"For the entire planet, it is a disaster. And for scientists, it is unequivocal - humans are to blame. All this is entirely consistent with predictions and repeated warnings.
The only surprise is the speed of the change.
Climate change is here. It is terrifying. And it is just the beginning.
The era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived.
The air is unbreathable.
The heat is unbearable.
And the level of fossil fuel profits and climate inaction is unacceptable.
www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2023-07-27/secretary-generals-opening-remarks-press-conference-climate
Talk about hysterical hyperbole and inflammatory language! I agree. But don't blame the messenger fang. He claims " . . . entirely consistent with predictions and repeated warnings . . .", despite the truth that most CCC predictions and warnings turn out to be utter bollocks.
f) you still don't see that it was you that was in fact baited.
g) i am not your enemy brother. The ****ers at the UN, WEF, IMF, Vatican, CCP, WHO, and central banks, amongst other private interests, are our enemy.
From the opinion piece article by Professor Ramesh Thakur, also quoted in "Ouch":
"Techniques of information control and public messaging during Covid can now be seen for what they are with respect also to climate policies: the manufacturing of a scientific and policy consensus that censors, silences, and marginalises sceptics and contrarians; the conflation of empirical science with assumptions-driven modelling; the politicisation and corruption of scientific research and publishing; the long list of catastrophist predictions that never materialise; the role of profit maximising commercial interests in driving the narrative; the adoption of luxury beliefs by the global elite that profits off catastrophism while shifting the cost burden to the working classes; etc. Climate change policies have mostly impoverished and inflicted hardships on Western populations without solving the climate crisis if there is one."
brownstone.org/articles/trump-calls-time-on-self-flagellation/
Select to expand quotepeacenlove said..GasHazard said..peacenlove said..
Another pillar of faith in the Climate Change Cult's (CCC) fear mongering propaganda, the hypothesised stalling or reversal of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), also put into B -grade Hollywood disaster movies for extra dramatic effect on the CC Cult Faithful, proves to be nothing to worry about whatsoever:
www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-55297-5
Just like the arctic summer sea ice claims based on flawed computer modelling that were shown to be untrue by time itself, yet more fear porn from the BBC proves to be nothing but hot air - again!
www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66289494
STATE fear porn website, the BBC, rode to the rescue of their reputation which is in the gutter, despite many sceptics calling it out:
www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn938ze4yyeo
Point is, the BBC keeps running these stories to stoke false fears in the alleged effects of "Climate Change". Why?
Where's fangman to complain about the BBC's bull dust reporting when we need him?
The BBC seems to be a big fan of publishing inconclusive PSEUDOSCIENCE.
The ice is thinner. The north-west passage opens every summer. The Greenland ice cap is melting. And here you are denying global warming and throwing around accusations of "PSEUDOSCIENCE".
You're hanging around the wrong websites sucking up bull****. Get a critical clue ffs.
Global warming / cooling are totally natural cycles. I never denied either. Does mankind's emissions contribute - yes. Do these emissions contribute so much as to lead to the catastrophes claimed by the Climate Change Cult - no evidence of that whatsoever.
We were told by "expert" "climate researchers" that:
a) using models in 2007, the summer polar ice would be zero by 2012 due to "global warming" and "climate change" - that was false in reality. You say the ice is thinner - yes that's true - but is the arctic ice free in summer as claimed by the priests of the Climate Change Cult in 2007 - no.
b) we were told many times that the AMOC could be an indicator of irreversible catastrophic climate events - all due to "global warming" and "climate change" - that is false in reality - as no such major changes have occurred as per the above studies.
C) we were told by CCC Priest Flannery that our east coast dams would be empty over 15 years ago - this was false in reality.
d) we were told that the barrier reef corals were in terminal decline due to mass bleaching due to "global warming" and "climate change" - this was false in reality.
e) we are now warned that the oceans are quote "boiling" due to "global warming" and "climate change" - this is utter nonsense PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC propaganda.
^^ This is the real bull dust - and you're telling me to "get a clue"?
It has nothing to do with what news we're reading - the above is reality - it can be denied or accepted as truth.
All those claims you refer to were presented as possibilities not certainties. Climate science is not so advanced that it can be predicted with certainty. Of course if you get your science from the sensationalist press you may not have noticed that.
I disagree, the hypothecated events are almost without question, presented by the usual STATE and corporate media as looming catastrophes, and that humans are to blame.
As you say, the science of climate is not so advanced that it can be predicted with certainty, yet we are told that the "globe is boiling" and our failure to act is the reason. Nothing sensationalist about that propaganda whack a mole nonsense puffery.
We are told that the "science is settled". Well which one is it, the "science is settled" and we have consensus, or "the science of climate is not so advanced that it can be predicted with certainty"?
REad Antonio Guterres statement above again, and tell me kindly, is he being calm and rational? Is he stating the facts clearly? Or is he by any objective measure - pontificating on doomsday scenarios?
Select to expand quotepeacenlove said..
One big thing that the Net Zero Cultists don't want to talk about is the Earth's ability to find equilibrium.
Put more CO2 into the atmosphere - plants and algae grow to compensate and balance.
The NZ Cultists wants us to believe that as the inputs rise, the result is just warming and no corresponding countermeasures by Mother Earth.
Which is in fangman' s words - utter bollocks.
This is what you really believe?
That the earth is able to self regulate?
Sure, plants can grow better if their supply of CO2 is increased.
Plants will frequently struggle if they are subjected to:
Small increase in temperature variations
Changes in water supply patter
Changes in pollinator and pest populations
Changes in other plants ability to compete.
Just look at the impacts of marine heatwave on Seagrass beds and kelp forests.
Plants can't absorb more co2 if they are dead.
