Climate change

[J70]

Climate change is a fact.

Climates have always changed and will change.  That is a fact. The theory that current climate change is wholly or predominantly man-made and will have catastrophic results most certainly is not.

Meanwhile, I await an answer to my question.

So CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas? Methane is NOT a greenhouse gas? Human activities are NOT pumping up the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? The climate is NOT undergoing a long term warming trend? Records are NOT being set every year now? The more extreme weather and rising seas are NOT having and will not have any effect on the natural or human world?

What specifically are you claiming?

Any time there's a bit of a gale, heavy rain or an Indian summer, it's all lumped in with "climate change". Conveniently, the term moved from "global warming" to further push the agenda.

You can thank Frank Luntz, George W Bush and the US Republican Party for that.

The term global warming was too scary and inconvenient for them.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange

[five points]

Climates have always changed and will change.  That is a fact. The theory that current climate change is wholly or predominantly man-made and will have catastrophic results most certainly is not.

It is an accepted fact to everyone except those with mental faculties equal to flat-earth believers.

I don't argue with personal insults.

Says the man that decided to target a 16 year old.

Saying "She's a troubled child with special needs" is not targeting. And you've actually agreed with my point that her politicking is not safe nor appropriate for her.

[RadioGAAGAA]

Saying "She's a troubled child with special needs" is not targeting.

In what world?

You attacked the messenger, not the message.

[five points]

Saying "She's a troubled child with special needs" is not targeting.

In what world?

You attacked the messenger, not the message.

I attacked no-one.

[RadioGAAGAA]

Saying "She's a troubled child with special needs" is not targeting.

In what world?

You attacked the messenger, not the message.

I attacked no-one.

I know your a bit slow on the uptake - as is obvious from your ignoring 99+% of the global scientific community - but you've even quoted your attack on her.

[five points]

Saying "She's a troubled child with special needs" is not targeting.

In what world?

You attacked the messenger, not the message.

I attacked no-one.

I know your a bit slow on the uptake - as is obvious from your ignoring 99+% of the global scientific community - but you've even quoted your attack on her.

Again and for the last time, I most  definitely did not. And, again and for the last time, I'm not engaging with your personal insults. Over  and out.

[RadioGAAGAA]

Saying "She's a troubled child with special needs" is not targeting.

In what world?

You attacked the messenger, not the message.

I attacked no-one.

I know your a bit slow on the uptake - as is obvious from your ignoring 99+% of the global scientific community - but you've even quoted your attack on her.

Again and for the last time, I most  definitely did not. And, again and for the last time, I'm not engaging with your personal insults. Over  and out.

Yes you did and good f__king riddance.

[Gabriel_Hurl]

I don't argue with personal insults.

Quite........

those who are criticising her are basically engaging in child abuse for hire.

Why do you think there's a (clearly troubled) child fronting this propaganda campaign?

She's a troubled child with special needs. If you think that fronting a huge political campaign is a safe and appropriate activity for her, fair enough but I beg to differ.

[omaghjoe]

I know a guy who works in the handling of aviation of fuel on planes frightfully dangerous stuff when you consider the pressure changes, movement of the fuel and the evaporation rate and the fact that one spark could be 300 corpses, and has a number of times.
Considering how volatile a relatively stable fuel like aviation fuel can become in a plane I would not like to be on a plane using something as unstable as hydrogen especially cryogenicaly which looks like the only feasible way to use it.
There would be so many deaths with this before they got it to an acceptable level that it would never get of the ground.... in a democracy at least .

No no no - a hydrogen fuelled plane would be much safer than kerosene. It is a misguided fallacy that hydrogen is more dangerous.

Consider this - hydrogen is lighter than air - so you crash land and one of your tanks starts to leak - where does that fuel go? Not on the ground where all the passengers are like kerosene, but quickly up into the air where it becomes so diffuse that its relatively safe from ignition.

There has been studies done on this and the conclusion was quite categorical - H2 is much safer than JetA!

Crash landing it might be safer for a fire since it does disperse quickly but an explosion is the risk where all the energy is released at once. Anyway I was actually thinking more of what happens if it leaks in flight in a confined space like the fuselage but I suppose the same could happen during a crash landing. The lightness of Hydrogen also make it very difficult to prevent leaks.
This of course is not to mention the dangers of having a pressure vessel of any kind at 3000PSI on board a plane, which I understand would be the min pressure it would be needed to make it anyway viable for a commerical jet.
The problem with planes is that you are at 10000m  and one thing goes wrong its curtains

[omaghjoe]

This thread has gone the usual route.....not untypical for the modern world.

I have to ask the question... what does a poster on here have to do with any solution for the climate?

[sid waddell]

those who are criticising her are basically engaging in child abuse for hire.

Why do you think there's a (clearly troubled) child fronting this propaganda campaign?

Because he's (somehow) the US President and is completely in the pockets of fossil fuel interests

[RadioGAAGAA]

Because he's (somehow) the US President and is completely in the pockets of fossil fuel interests

... and he's jealous that she is smarter than him?

[sid waddell]

Viciously abusing children is an integral part of mainstream right-wing ideology

This applies to sexual abuse, putting children of refugees in concentration camps, claiming that survivors of school shootings are "crisis actors" and vicious verbal abuse of a young environmental campaigner

Right-wing politics is totally bankrupt of ideas

It has no vision whatsoever for improving the lives of people, well, no vision whatsoever for improving the lives of people who aren't already filthy rich at any rate

So shameless abuse of the weak, marginalised and those who are campaigning to change society and the world for good is now all it has left

Trump, Johnson and the other hard Brexiteers, Putin, the DUP, Netanyahu, Bin Salman, Orban, Modi, Bolsonaro, Duterte, Erdogan, Salvini, Le Pen, AFD etc., they are all the same thing - they are part of a loose, and often less loose international alliance of kleptocrats and sadists who are out to protect untramelled privilege and power at all costs, and they have no problem dragging the world into a new dark age to do so

[Eamonnca1]

Climate change is a fact.

Climates have always changed and will change.  That is a fact. The theory that current climate change is wholly or predominantly man-made and will have catastrophic results most certainly is not.

Meanwhile, I await an answer to my question.

People have always died of natural causes, therefore murder is impossible.

[Eamonnca1]

There is widespread but not universal suspicion that CO2, methane etc are greenhouse gases but their actual effects in what are complex to the point of chaotic climatic systems are still a matter of debate.

Incorrect. They are greenhouse gases. No debate about it.

The theory of a long term warming trend is also a matter of debate.

No it is not.

40 years ago the scientists thought the earth was cooling.

Incorrect. Hansen et al. (1981), which was typical of studies at the time, had this to say:

"It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage."

And there is a fair degree of selective bias in the "records being broken every year" stories.

How can global average temperatures have "selective bias?"