Climate Change

Signalcalc said:
. . . 450 slats @ 3.6m each, that is a massive garden, are you starting a farm!?
Click to expand...
counter_violent said:
Hmm. Totally confused by Tim's description, but on that basis i'd have to quote 50k labour charge, no materials supplied. :ROFLMAO:

On the other hand if I was making an educated guess....i'd say a slat is 4" wide x 450 off = 150 ft max of fencing required.
Click to expand...
Hi Chaps,
I'm sure neither of you are in the least bit interested but, just for the record, a quick explanation. Each slat is a slim 38mm wide and the fence is double sided, i.e. it's finished the same on my neighbour's side as it is on our side. Additionally, my neighbour's property is above mine, so a two foot retaining wall is included, resulting in the fence being circa 5ft high on his side but 7ft high on our side.

Unfortunately, I can't offer either of you a dime but, rest assured, in return for your hard work, food, accommodation and plenty of refreshment will be provided. Think of it as a Devon Kibbutz!
Tim.
 
At home with the Thunberg's ...............
 
timsk said:
Hi Chaps,
I'm sure neither of you are in the least bit interested but, just for the record, a quick explanation. Each slat is a slim 38mm wide and the fence is double sided, i.e. it's finished the same on my neighbour's side as it is on our side. Additionally, my neighbour's property is above mine, so a two foot retaining wall is included, resulting in the fence being circa 5ft high on his side but 7ft high on our side.

Unfortunately, I can't offer either of you a dime but, rest assured, in return for your hard work, food, accommodation and plenty of refreshment will be provided. Think of it as a Devon Kibbutz!
Tim.
Click to expand...

If you are also prepping for the forthcoming once in 400 years multiple decade solar minimum, growing your own food, brewing your own beer and chopping wood, then I'm in (I have all those skills)! :D
 
wackypete2 said:
. . . Man made global climate change crisis is just a hoax. . .
Click to expand...
You're sounding quite Presidential Peter!
I've not yet convinced myself that it's a hoax, but there's certainly a lot of loose ends, unanswered questions and things that generally just don't quite add up. So, I'm very much in the sceptics camp; still a fair way to go before I gravitate to being an all out denier.
Tim.
 
I haven't watched the 97% clip but I can't legitimately argue with the notion that 97% is an exaggeration. It could be for all I know. Don't really care. Whether its 97% or 51%, result is still the same for me.
 
tomorton said:
I haven't watched the 97% clip but I can't legitimately argue with the notion that 97% is an exaggeration. It could be for all I know. Don't really care. Whether its 97% or 51%, result is still the same for me.
Click to expand...
Hi Tom,
A question for you: how will we convince you or, rather, how will you convince yourself that the tables have turned and it is the sceptics who comprise the majority and the alarmists who are now in the minority? In fact, it could already be thus, given that we know the sceptics are silenced and the so called '97% consensus' is anything but (a consensus). When I say "we", I mean Sig', Peter, c_v, 0007, me, et al know this because we've done the research. However, if you're not willing to do your own then, presumably, you're just waiting for the likes of Saint Greta, David Attenborough or the BBC to tell you that the science has evolved and the scientific consensus now says anthropogenic global warming is a load of ol' bunkum?
;)
Tim.
 
timsk said:
Hi Tom,
A question for you: how will we convince you or, rather, how will you convince yourself that the tables have turned and it is the sceptics who comprise the majority and the alarmists who are now in the minority? In fact, it could already be thus, given that we know the sceptics are silenced and the so called '97% consensus' is anything but (a consensus). When I say "we", I mean Sig', Peter, c_v, 0007, me, et al know this because we've done the research. However, if you're not willing to do your own then, presumably, you're just waiting for the likes of Saint Greta, David Attenborough or the BBC to tell you that the science has evolved and the scientific consensus now says anthropogenic global warming is a load of ol' bunkum?
;)
Tim.
Click to expand...
Tim
Forget about who anyone reckons is in the majority (how would they know?) but instead say as a result of all your research what you think are the odds of continuing and significant global warning which is being caused (or exacerbated) by human activity.

I doubt that even the most rabid sceptic would claim 0% . We can only guess at that overall %age but if you on a personal level conclude a figure north of 30% then I’d say that easily represents a high enough risk to be doing something about.
 
timsk said:
Hi Tom,
A question for you: how will we convince you or, rather, how will you convince yourself that the tables have turned and it is the sceptics who comprise the majority and the alarmists who are now in the minority? In fact, it could already be thus, given that we know the sceptics are silenced and the so called '97% consensus' is anything but (a consensus). When I say "we", I mean Sig', Peter, c_v, 0007, me, et al know this because we've done the research. However, if you're not willing to do your own then, presumably, you're just waiting for the likes of Saint Greta, David Attenborough or the BBC to tell you that the science has evolved and the scientific consensus now says anthropogenic global warming is a load of ol' bunkum?
;)
Tim.
Click to expand...

Basically yes. I await reports that scientific knowledge has developed to the point where the majority of scientists believe that human-induced climate change is not happening or it is not a risk. I've said I won't argue with this. Its not a question of me exercising any judgement, I will simply follow the majority of experts in the field.
 
tomorton said:
Basically yes. I await reports that scientific knowledge has developed to the point where the majority of scientists believe that human-induced climate change is not happening or it is not a risk. I've said I won't argue with this. Its not a question of me exercising any judgement, I will simply follow the majority of experts in the field.
Click to expand...
Hi Tom,
I understand your position completely. But my question remains: how will you decide if/when the seesaw has swung the other way and that the majority of scientists now say that climate change isn't an issue? Is it an official statement from the IPCC, the BBC, Greta or someone/something else? The point I'm driving at - in case it isn't obvious - is that if all you're interested in are the percentages then, at any one time, you must have a mechanism for concluding that the percentages are the same or are shifting this way or that way?
Tim.
 
timsk said:
Hi Tom,
I understand your position completely. But my question remains: how will you decide if/when the seesaw has swung the other way and that the majority of scientists now say that climate change isn't an issue? Is it an official statement from the IPCC, the BBC, Greta or someone/something else? The point I'm driving at - in case it isn't obvious - is that if all you're interested in are the percentages then, at any one time, you must have a mechanism for concluding that the percentages are the same or are shifting this way or that way?
Tim.
Click to expand...


My belief will follow the scientific community's majority. That will surely be reported through the mainstream media but it would need to be drawn from a credible report from the scientific community.

I don't generally listen to teenagers (and never talk to them).
 
Hi Jon,
barjon said:
Forget about who anyone reckons is in the majority (how would they know?) but instead say as a result of all your research what you think are the odds of continuing and significant global warning which is being caused (or exacerbated) by human activity.
Click to expand...
The majority is critical to Tom's position - not mine; that's why I'm questioning him about it.

barjon said:
I doubt that even the most rabid sceptic would claim 0% . We can only guess at that overall %age but if you on a personal level conclude a figure north of 30% then I’d say that easily represents a high enough risk to be doing something about.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about that! The most 'rabid sceptics' claim that there's no causal link between Co2 and temperature and that the former lags the latter so it can't possibly cause warming. Plucking an arbitrary figure of 30% out of thin air is not what I'm doing and I rather doubt that other sceptics are either. I may be wrong about that but, for me, science is science and either there is a definite causal link between Co2 and temperature or there isn't. If, as the alarmists claim, Co2 is the key driver for global warming, then there ought not to be any debate about it in the same way that there's no debate about whether (or not) man has landed on the moon and that the earth is round and not flat etc.

Basing climate change on an unproven theory and that there may, possibly, be a 30% probability of anthropogenic global warming is a woefully inadequate basis on which to formulate major political policy that will turn the lives of millions (billions?) of people upside down and send us all back into the dark ages and condemn the third world to perpetual grinding poverty. Increasingly, it looks like project fear used as an excuse to impose massive new taxes.
Tim.
 
timsk said:
However, if you're not willing to do your own then, presumably, you're just waiting for the likes of Saint Greta, David Attenborough or the BBC to tell you that the science has evolved and the scientific consensus now says anthropogenic global warming is a load of ol' bunkum?
;)
Tim.
Click to expand...

I doubt we are going to get some sort of dramatic u-turn to debate CO2, the global climate emergency tanker is at full tilt, slowing that down and turning it around will take some effort, voting and years to achieve, with much doubling down by the likes of the alarmists and MSM.

Tax revenue is needed now to support the wind and solar industries and provide a return for investors. Another vector not much talked about is the amount of environmental damage these two industries cause and the real cost in terms of CO2 (for that is the only currency the alarmists understand), lack of scrutiny there suggests corruption (as it does across the whole CO2 debate, or lack thereof).

However underestimating the opposition when the silent majority feel strongly can lead to change, if natural climate change is the popular (and possibly scientific) mainstream view then eventually it will win through (as has been the case in for example Brexit, Trump).

We are seeing rays of hope that the debate can be restarted though, more prominent people appear less frightened to voice their thoughts, even if it not quite reaching our mainstream telescreens.
 
timsk said:
Hi Jon,

The majority is critical to Tom's position - not mine; that's why I'm questioning him about it.


I'm not sure about that! The most 'rabid sceptics' claim that there's no causal link between Co2 and temperature and that the former lags the latter so it can't possibly cause warming. Plucking an arbitrary figure of 30% out of thin air is not what I'm doing and I rather doubt that other sceptics are either. I may be wrong about that but, for me, science is science and either there is a definite causal link between Co2 and temperature or there isn't. If, as the alarmists claim, Co2 is the key driver for global warming, then there ought not to be any debate about it in the same way that there's no debate about whether (or not) man has landed on the moon and that the earth is round and not flat etc.

Basing climate change on an unproven theory and that there may, possibly, be a 30% probability of anthropogenic global warming is a woefully inadequate basis on which to formulate major political policy that will turn the lives of millions (billions?) of people upside down and send us all back into the dark ages and condemn the third world to perpetual grinding poverty. Increasingly, it looks like project fear used as an excuse to impose massive new taxes.
Tim.
Click to expand...

yeah, north of a 30% risk was just an example figure where you’d certainly think it was worthwhile doing something about reducing the risk. I was trying to make the point that the science is not settled (except, maybe, in the minds of the extremists on both sides) so until it is the outcome in terms of damage to the planet’s environment is uncertain. Aside from expense (as signal is always keen to point out:)) there is not much risk in trying to do something about climate change whether or not it is actually happening and whether or not it’s down to us. On the other hand there’s a lot of risk attached to doing nothing.
 
7.7 billion humans exhale CO2 every breath. So serious climate change advocates should want to eliminate all humans. Trees and plants use CO2 for photosynthesis to make food for themselves. Eliminating humans would also have the effect of killing a high percentage of plant life. So who here is in favor of all that??

Peter
 
wackypete2 said:
7.7 billion humans exhale CO2 every breath. So serious climate change advocates should want to eliminate all humans. Trees and plants use CO2 for photosynthesis to make food for themselves. Eliminating humans would also have the effect of killing a high percentage of plant life. So who here is in favor of all that??

Peter
Click to expand...
Current world leaders with their waste of valuable resources to make more powerful destructive weapons. Quite mad really and they are in charge...…….
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Westward Group Alternative Energy Tokyo: No excuse for inaction on emissions
Replies
1
Views
1K
ABTrading
ABTrading
Stewenson133
12 Economic Bubbles That May Burst
Replies
18
Views
6K
SAINT
S
P
Providio's Futures Market Comentary for March 14, 2012
Replies
0
Views
2K
providiotrading
P
NVP
Property - the pitfalls and problems
Replies
1
Views
2K
Aforce1
A
Top