Discussion:
Boris moves on Climate Change
Add Reply
Rich80105
2020-02-09 09:21:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The newly elected government in the UK under Boris Johnson has
signalled early that they are taking climate change seriously:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/04/car-industry-petrol-diesel-ban-uk-electric-vehicles
Tony
2020-02-09 19:40:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
The newly elected government in the UK under Boris Johnson has
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/04/car-industry-petrol-diesel-ban-uk-electric-vehicles
As the article says, there is no plan.
How will the electricity be generated, what will they do with the toxic
batteries when they are replaced and so on.
If. as many learned scientists believe, climate change is not primarily man
made then what good will this do. That question is still being wilfully ignored
by the followers of the frenzied climate change hysteria.
Political rhetoric, nothing more.
Rich80105
2020-02-09 20:31:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 09 Feb 2020 13:40:01 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The newly elected government in the UK under Boris Johnson has
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/04/car-industry-petrol-diesel-ban-uk-electric-vehicles
As the article says, there is no plan.
How will the electricity be generated, what will they do with the toxic
batteries when they are replaced and so on.
If. as many learned scientists believe, climate change is not primarily man
made then what good will this do. That question is still being wilfully ignored
by the followers of the frenzied climate change hysteria.
Political rhetoric, nothing more.
Of course it is, Tony - you are absolutely "Right" - the same tactics
are used by the Republicans in the USA and National here; it will be
totally poll driven, and also possibly an attempt to distract from a
decline in the British Car industry:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/29/british-car-industry-suffers-worst-period-of-decline-since-2001

Perhaps the hope is that a move towards electric vehicles will bring
back jobs?
Tony
2020-02-09 20:50:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sun, 09 Feb 2020 13:40:01 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The newly elected government in the UK under Boris Johnson has
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/04/car-industry-petrol-diesel-ban-uk-electric-vehicles
As the article says, there is no plan.
How will the electricity be generated, what will they do with the toxic
batteries when they are replaced and so on.
If. as many learned scientists believe, climate change is not primarily man
made then what good will this do. That question is still being wilfully ignored
by the followers of the frenzied climate change hysteria.
Political rhetoric, nothing more.
Of course it is, Tony - you are absolutely right - the same tactics
are used by the Republicans in the USA and National here; it will be
totally poll driven, and also possibly an attempt to distract from a
Indeed and the British Labour party and the NZ Labour party and every damn
party of any desciption in the entire planet.
Post by Rich80105
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/29/british-car-industry-suffers-worst-period-of-decline-since-2001
Irrelevant, nothing to do with the subject.
Post by Rich80105
Perhaps the hope is that a move towards electric vehicles will bring
back jobs?
Nonsense - it is vote catching garbage which clearly has taken you in. Note I
have corrected your bad English.
James Christophers
2020-02-09 21:49:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The newly elected government in the UK under Boris Johnson has
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/04/car-industry-petrol-diesel-ban-uk-electric-vehicles
As the article says, there is no plan.
Early days - whether already too late or not is not known. Anyway, what's to stop them developing one?
Post by Tony
How will the electricity be generated, what will they do with the toxic
batteries when they are replaced and so on.
Waste disposal is a perennial dilemma worldwide, which is not necessarily to dismiss the point. Generations and disposal would presumably be incorporated in the plan though Johnson is invariably infinitely more engaged with the notion of power for its own sake than with any other thing you can think of.
Post by Tony
If. as many learned scientists believe, climate change is not primarily man
made then what good will this do.
Belief and faith occupy the same mentality. Is such an appproach the basis of scientific learning?

In any case, to date, no learned scientist has conclusively proved that climate change is **not** due to human activity, whether this be primarily or secondarily.

Again, you say 'not primarily', in which case I reckon the mitigation of whatever human causes and effects **are** contributing to climate change seems a good idea.
Post by Tony
That question is still being wilfully ignored
by the followers of the frenzied climate change hysteria.
Political rhetoric, nothing more.
Right or wrong, that doesn't negate current indications that global temperature and rainfall patterns are shifting and, in toto, not to the benefit of life on earth.
Tony
2020-02-09 22:02:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The newly elected government in the UK under Boris Johnson has
Post by Rich80105
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/04/car-industry-petrol-diesel-ban-uk-electric-vehicles
As the article says, there is no plan.
Early days - whether already too late or not is not known. Anyway, what's to
stop them developing one?
Nothing but that is not the point - setting a timeframe without a plan is not
smart even though politicians often do it.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
How will the electricity be generated, what will they do with the toxic
batteries when they are replaced and so on.
Waste disposal is a perennial dilemma worldwide, which is not necessarily to
dismiss the point. Generations and disposal would presumably be incorporated
in the plan though Johnson is invariably infinitely more engaged with the
notion of power for its own sake than with any other thing you can think of.
Post by Tony
If. as many learned scientists believe, climate change is not primarily man
made then what good will this do.
Belief and faith occupy the same mentality. Is such an appproach the basis of
scientific learning?
Scientific belief is always based on science otherwise it is not scientific.
Post by James Christophers
In any case, to date, no learned scientist has conclusively proved that
climate change is **not** due to human activity, whether this be primarily or
secondarily.
Nor have any proved that it is primarily dues to human activity,
Post by James Christophers
Again, you say 'not primarily', in which case I reckon the mitigation of
whatever human causes and effects **are** contributing to climate change seems
a good idea.
Post by Tony
That question is still being wilfully ignored
by the followers of the frenzied climate change hysteria.
Political rhetoric, nothing more.
Right or wrong, that doesn't negate current indications that global
temperature and rainfall patterns are shifting and, in toto, not to the benefit
of life on earth.
The point is that if the main cause is not human then electric cars will do
little or nothing to help.
James Christophers
2020-02-09 23:23:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The newly elected government in the UK under Boris Johnson has
Post by Rich80105
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/04/car-industry-petrol-diesel-ban-uk-electric-vehicles
As the article says, there is no plan.
Early days - whether already too late or not is not known. Anyway, what's to
stop them developing one?
Nothing but that is not the point - setting a timeframe without a plan is not
smart even though politicians often do it.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
How will the electricity be generated, what will they do with the toxic
batteries when they are replaced and so on.
Waste disposal is a perennial dilemma worldwide, which is not necessarily to
dismiss the point. Generations and disposal would presumably be incorporated
in the plan though Johnson is invariably infinitely more engaged with the
notion of power for its own sake than with any other thing you can think of.
Post by Tony
If. as many learned scientists believe, climate change is not primarily man
made then what good will this do.
Belief and faith occupy the same mentality. Is such an appproach the basis of
scientific learning?
Scientific belief is always based on science otherwise it is not scientific.
Post by James Christophers
In any case, to date, no learned scientist has conclusively proved that
climate change is **not** due to human activity, whether this be primarily or
secondarily.
Nor have any proved that it is primarily dues to human activity,
Quite so and this is the dichotomy at the core of what can never be a conclusive discourse. However, I don't recall your having ever mentioned the obverse point I make is why I have included it in my reply. To correct the imbalance.

So it's not solely a binary "do something" or "do nothing" issue; rather, it's an inconclusive "balance of probability" conundrum, meaning that in essence any extended debate can only be circular, nothing but unproductive thumb-twiddling.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Again, you say 'not primarily', in which case I reckon the mitigation of
whatever human causes and effects **are** contributing to climate change seems
a good idea.
Post by Tony
That question is still being wilfully ignored
by the followers of the frenzied climate change hysteria.
Political rhetoric, nothing more.
Right or wrong, that doesn't negate current indications that global
temperature and rainfall patterns are shifting and, in toto, not to the benefit
of life on earth.
The point is that if the main cause is not human then electric cars will do
little or nothing to help.
Yet, at least from the pollution aspect, let alone any climate-change considerations, governments and industry around the world are acting on pollution and (putative) climate-change, and chosing to do so - be aware - on the balance of probabilities.

If nothing else, this represents a paradigm shift for the overall betterment of the environment while also spurring on the invention and development of new technology for the benefit of the planet as a whole.

Summed up: When the balance of probability is virtually all one has to go onThe binary, "doing nothing" is not an option but a cop out.
Tony
2020-02-10 01:44:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The newly elected government in the UK under Boris Johnson has
Post by Rich80105
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/04/car-industry-petrol-diesel-ban-uk-electric-vehicles
As the article says, there is no plan.
Early days - whether already too late or not is not known. Anyway, what's to
stop them developing one?
Nothing but that is not the point - setting a timeframe without a plan is not
smart even though politicians often do it.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
How will the electricity be generated, what will they do with the toxic
batteries when they are replaced and so on.
Waste disposal is a perennial dilemma worldwide, which is not necessarily to
dismiss the point. Generations and disposal would presumably be incorporated
in the plan though Johnson is invariably infinitely more engaged with the
notion of power for its own sake than with any other thing you can think of.
Post by Tony
If. as many learned scientists believe, climate change is not primarily man
made then what good will this do.
Belief and faith occupy the same mentality. Is such an appproach the basis of
scientific learning?
Scientific belief is always based on science otherwise it is not scientific.
Post by James Christophers
In any case, to date, no learned scientist has conclusively proved that
climate change is **not** due to human activity, whether this be primarily or
secondarily.
Nor have any proved that it is primarily dues to human activity,
Quite so and this is the dichotomy at the core of what can never be a
conclusive discourse. However, I don't recall your having ever mentioned the
obverse point I make is why I have included it in my reply. To correct the
imbalance.
So it's not solely a binary "do something" or "do nothing" issue; rather, it's
an inconclusive "balance of probability" conundrum, meaning that in essence any
extended debate can only be circular, nothing but unproductive thumb-twiddling.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Again, you say 'not primarily', in which case I reckon the mitigation of
whatever human causes and effects **are** contributing to climate change seems
a good idea.
Post by Tony
That question is still being wilfully ignored
by the followers of the frenzied climate change hysteria.
Political rhetoric, nothing more.
Right or wrong, that doesn't negate current indications that global
temperature and rainfall patterns are shifting and, in toto, not to the benefit
of life on earth.
The point is that if the main cause is not human then electric cars will do
little or nothing to help.
Yet, at least from the pollution aspect, let alone any climate-change
considerations, governments and industry around the world are acting on
pollution and (putative) climate-change, and chosing to do so - be aware - on
the balance of probabilities.
If nothing else, this represents a paradigm shift for the overall betterment
of the environment while also spurring on the invention and development of new
technology for the benefit of the planet as a whole.
Summed up: When the balance of probability is virtually all one has to go
onThe binary, "doing nothing" is not an option but a cop out.
Agreed, I have never been on the side of "do nothing" on this issue.
BR
2020-02-10 04:35:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:49:01 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
In any case, to date, no learned scientist has conclusively proved that climate change is **not** due to human activity, whether this be primarily or secondarily.
When bizarre claims are being made, it is up to those making them to
prove them, otherwise anyone can claim anything and be taken
seriously.

Bill.
James Christophers
2020-02-10 05:15:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BR
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:49:01 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
In any case, to date, no learned scientist has conclusively proved that climate change is **not** due to human activity, whether this be primarily or secondarily.
When bizarre claims are being made, it is up to those making them to
prove them, otherwise anyone can claim anything and be taken
seriously.
Serious rational assessment excludes bizarre claims, which is why, with a few exceptions, the balance of probabilities in favour of the "man-made" scenario is now considered too irresistible to be ignored or denied.

Multiples of billions of reduction in pollution and associated remediation say so, this most significantly from the for-profit 'infinite growth' corporate mob who, if nothing else, know which side their bread's buttered, 'infinite economic growth' itself being as bizarre as it gets.
BR
2020-02-11 04:30:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 21:15:50 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by BR
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:49:01 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
In any case, to date, no learned scientist has conclusively proved that climate change is **not** due to human activity, whether this be primarily or secondarily.
When bizarre claims are being made, it is up to those making them to
prove them, otherwise anyone can claim anything and be taken
seriously.
Serious rational assessment excludes bizarre claims,
"Carbon dioxide is a pollutant". That claim is about as bizarre as it
gets. What is the evidence for this and where is the evidence that
there is a problem? Carbon dioxide makes up about 0.04% of the
atmosphere, and human activity is responsible for about 3% of that.
Another well hackneyed bizarre claim is that the sea level is rising.
This is demonstratively false. How much is it rising? Tell me the
numbers.
Post by James Christophers
which is why, with a few exceptions, the balance of probabilities in favour of the "man-made" scenario is now considered too irresistible to be ignored or denied.
If it wasn't for the relentless drumbeat of fake news in the
traditional media, nobody would ever believe a collection of quackery
so preposterous that it comes complete with a record of predictive
failure dating back more than forty years. The climate fraud needs
some serious pushback. The good news is that the tide may be turning
(no pun intended). One wouldn't think so by what appears in the news
media, apart from the fact that the increasing shrillness of their
hysterical braying betrays more than just a hint of desperation.

It is in comments sections on social media that the battle is slowly
being won. When the newspapers first established a presence online
they included their own comments sections, but these were swiftly
taken down as their credibility came under scrutiny on their own
websites. Nevertheless, the days when the media did all the talking
and the masses did all the listening are well and truly over.

I know that people like you can never be persuaded to change your
minds. You either have a vested interest in keeping the lies and the
propaganda going, or are a victim of said propaganda. For whatever
reason, you are entrenched in your positions, I get that, but far more
people read social media posts than contribute to them in any
substantive way. I already know of people who have happened across
some of the many rational arguments that easily debunk the howling
irrationality of the climate disaster hustlers and they no longer
believe the hype. Small victories I would concede, but quite
remarkable when seen alongside the in-your-face propaganda that is
cranked out around the clock at a level and intensity so extreme that
even the most cloistered of hermits couldn't help but notice.
Post by James Christophers
Multiples of billions of reduction in pollution and associated remediation say so,
Who?
Post by James Christophers
this most significantly from the for-profit 'infinite growth' corporate mob who, if nothing else, know which side their bread's buttered,
All private businesses from the corporates to sole traders and
everything in between are our providers. If not them, then who else?
Post by James Christophers
'infinite economic growth' itself being as bizarre as it gets.
You're the one claiming that. Where did this "infinite growth" idea
come from?

Bill.
Gordon
2020-02-11 06:14:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BR
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 21:15:50 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by BR
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:49:01 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
In any case, to date, no learned scientist has conclusively proved that climate change is **not** due to human activity, whether this be primarily or secondarily.
When bizarre claims are being made, it is up to those making them to
prove them, otherwise anyone can claim anything and be taken
seriously.
Serious rational assessment excludes bizarre claims,
"Carbon dioxide is a pollutant". That claim is about as bizarre as it
gets.
Depends where it is and how much of it there is.
Post by BR
What is the evidence for this and where is the evidence that
there is a problem?
In a confined space. Once the CO2 displaces the O2 a point is reached where
huamns are affected big time.
Post by BR
Another well hackneyed bizarre claim is that the sea level is rising.
This is demonstratively false. How much is it rising? Tell me the
numbers.
The numbers I have read are 1.5mm to 3mm per year.

If land base ice melts then the sea levels will rise. Sea ice melting has no
affect on sea levels. (Ice is less dense than water)
Post by BR
Post by James Christophers
which is why, with a few exceptions, the balance of probabilities in favour of the "man-made" scenario is now considered too irresistible to be ignored or denied.
If it wasn't for the relentless drumbeat of fake news in the
traditional media, nobody would ever believe a collection of quackery
so preposterous that it comes complete with a record of predictive
failure dating back more than forty years. The climate fraud needs
some serious pushback. The good news is that the tide may be turning
(no pun intended). One wouldn't think so by what appears in the news
media, apart from the fact that the increasing shrillness of their
hysterical braying betrays more than just a hint of desperation.
It is in comments sections on social media that the battle is slowly
being won. When the newspapers first established a presence online
they included their own comments sections, but these were swiftly
taken down as their credibility came under scrutiny on their own
websites. Nevertheless, the days when the media did all the talking
and the masses did all the listening are well and truly over.
I know that people like you can never be persuaded to change your
minds. You either have a vested interest in keeping the lies and the
propaganda going, or are a victim of said propaganda. For whatever
reason, you are entrenched in your positions, I get that, but far more
people read social media posts than contribute to them in any
substantive way. I already know of people who have happened across
some of the many rational arguments that easily debunk the howling
irrationality of the climate disaster hustlers and they no longer
believe the hype. Small victories I would concede, but quite
remarkable when seen alongside the in-your-face propaganda that is
cranked out around the clock at a level and intensity so extreme that
even the most cloistered of hermits couldn't help but notice.
Post by James Christophers
Multiples of billions of reduction in pollution and associated remediation say so,
Who?
Post by James Christophers
this most significantly from the for-profit 'infinite growth' corporate mob who, if nothing else, know which side their bread's buttered,
All private businesses from the corporates to sole traders and
everything in between are our providers. If not them, then who else?
Post by James Christophers
'infinite economic growth' itself being as bizarre as it gets.
You're the one claiming that. Where did this "infinite growth" idea
come from?
Bill.
James Christophers
2020-02-11 20:42:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BR
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 21:15:50 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by BR
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:49:01 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
In any case, to date, no learned scientist has conclusively proved that climate change is **not** due to human activity, whether this be primarily or secondarily.
When bizarre claims are being made, it is up to those making them to
prove them, otherwise anyone can claim anything and be taken
seriously.
Serious rational assessment excludes bizarre claims,
"Carbon dioxide is a pollutant". That claim is about as bizarre as it
gets.
Really? A benign substances in one circumstance becomes malign when inappropriately introduced or applied (possibly to excess) in another. Example: Oxygen is a poison.

Take, say, CO2 and oceanic acidification and its crucial effects on marine algae and calcareous species which include coral. If you would contest it, take it up with the writer and let the group know how you get on. (Hint: in total, the oceans supply the earth with approximately 80% of its oxygen.
Post by BR
Post by James Christophers
Multiples of billions of reduction in pollution and associated remediation say so,
Who?
Manufacturing outfits worldwide which have invested billions in carbon and CO2-related reduction technology - e.g China, reportedly still the world's biggest carbon emitter, is also now the world's largest producer of wind and solar technology and is about to become the world's biggest producer of electric vehicles.

(Dec 30 2019: Tesla has delivered its first cars made in China, marking a major milestone for the electric vehicle maker. Fifteen Model 3 sedans were handed over at the company's so-called "Gigafactory" near Shanghai.
Post by BR
Post by James Christophers
this most significantly from the for-profit 'infinite growth' corporate mob who, if nothing else, know which side their bread's buttered,
All private businesses from the corporates to sole traders and
everything in between are our providers. If not them, then who else?
Quite so. But what they produce and the purposes to which it is put ultimately combine to make up the carbon/CO2 total.
Post by BR
Post by James Christophers
'infinite economic growth' itself being as bizarre as it gets.
You're the one claiming that. Where did this "infinite growth" idea
come from?
Shareholders whose motto, as you well know Bill, is "More can never be enough".
James Christophers
2020-02-11 22:43:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BR
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 21:15:50 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by BR
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:49:01 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
In any case, to date, no learned scientist has conclusively proved that climate change is **not** due to human activity, whether this be primarily or secondarily.
When bizarre claims are being made, it is up to those making them to
prove them, otherwise anyone can claim anything and be taken
seriously.
Serious rational assessment excludes bizarre claims,
"Carbon dioxide is a pollutant". That claim is about as bizarre as it
gets.
Really? A benign substance in one circumstance becomes malign when inappropriately introduced or applied (possibly to excess) in another. Example: Oxygen is a poison.
Take, say, CO2 and oceanic acidification and its crucial effects on marine algae and calcareous species which include coral. If you would contest it, take it up with the writer and let the group know how you get on.
(I had intended to include references but inadvertently omitted to. However, Google will provide the genuinely motivated with more qualified instruction than some could ever need.)
(Hint: in total, the oceans supply the earth with approximately 80% of its oxygen.)
Post by BR
Post by James Christophers
Multiples of billions of reduction in pollution and associated remediation say so,
Who?
Manufacturing outfits worldwide which have invested billions in carbon and CO2-related reduction technology - e.g China, reportedly still the world's biggest carbon emitter, is also now the world's largest producer of wind and solar technology and is about to become the world's biggest producer of electric vehicles.
(Dec 30 2019: Tesla has delivered its first cars made in China, marking a major milestone for the electric vehicle maker. Fifteen Model 3 sedans were handed over at the company's so-called "Gigafactory" near Shanghai.
Post by BR
Post by James Christophers
this most significantly from the for-profit 'infinite growth' corporate mob who, if nothing else, know which side their bread's buttered,
All private businesses from the corporates to sole traders and
everything in between are our providers. If not them, then who else?
Quite so. But what they produce and the purposes to which it is put ultimately combine to make up the carbon/CO2 total.
Post by BR
Post by James Christophers
'infinite economic growth' itself being as bizarre as it gets.
You're the one claiming that. Where did this "infinite growth" idea
come from?
Shareholders whose motto, as you well know Bill, is "More can never be enough".
BR
2020-02-13 04:19:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 12:42:54 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by BR
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 21:15:50 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by BR
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:49:01 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
In any case, to date, no learned scientist has conclusively proved that climate change is **not** due to human activity, whether this be primarily or secondarily.
When bizarre claims are being made, it is up to those making them to
prove them, otherwise anyone can claim anything and be taken
seriously.
Serious rational assessment excludes bizarre claims,
"Carbon dioxide is a pollutant". That claim is about as bizarre as it
gets.
Really? A benign substances in one circumstance becomes malign when inappropriately introduced or applied (possibly to excess) in another. Example: Oxygen is a poison.
This is true for every single subsance there is. We are talking about
a .000006% increase.
Post by James Christophers
Take, say, CO2 and oceanic acidification and its crucial effects on marine algae and calcareous species which include coral. If you would contest it, take it up with the writer and let the group know how you get on. (Hint: in total, the oceans supply the earth with approximately 80% of its oxygen.
Where is the evidence that there is a problem?
Post by James Christophers
Post by BR
Post by James Christophers
Multiples of billions of reduction in pollution and associated remediation say so,
Who?
Manufacturing outfits worldwide which have invested billions in carbon and CO2-related reduction technology - e.g China, reportedly still the world's biggest carbon emitter, is also now the world's largest producer of wind and solar technology and is about to become the world's biggest producer of electric vehicles.
The demand is created by politicians and their media surrogates. The
only reason people take this stuff seriously is because they have it
rammed down their throats every night on the TV and every day in the
newspapers. None of this stuff would sell without the relentless
propaganda campaign that has been going on for more than 40 years.
Post by James Christophers
(Dec 30 2019: Tesla has delivered its first cars made in China, marking a major milestone for the electric vehicle maker. Fifteen Model 3 sedans were handed over at the company's so-called "Gigafactory" near Shanghai.
Post by BR
Post by James Christophers
this most significantly from the for-profit 'infinite growth' corporate mob who, if nothing else, know which side their bread's buttered,
All private businesses from the corporates to sole traders and
everything in between are our providers. If not them, then who else?
Quite so. But what they produce and the purposes to which it is put ultimately combine to make up the carbon/CO2 total.
Post by BR
Post by James Christophers
'infinite economic growth' itself being as bizarre as it gets.
You're the one claiming that. Where did this "infinite growth" idea
come from?
Shareholders whose motto, as you well know Bill, is "More can never be enough".
John Bowes
2020-02-11 04:35:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by BR
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:49:01 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
In any case, to date, no learned scientist has conclusively proved that climate change is **not** due to human activity, whether this be primarily or secondarily.
When bizarre claims are being made, it is up to those making them to
prove them, otherwise anyone can claim anything and be taken
seriously.
Serious rational assessment excludes bizarre claims, which is why, with a few exceptions, the balance of probabilities in favour of the "man-made" scenario is now considered too irresistible to be ignored or denied.
Multiples of billions of reduction in pollution and associated remediation say so, this most significantly from the for-profit 'infinite growth' corporate mob who, if nothing else, know which side their bread's buttered, 'infinite economic growth' itself being as bizarre as it gets.
You missed your true calling Keith. You ARE a comedian :)
George
2020-02-10 19:01:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 17:35:45 +1300
Post by BR
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:49:01 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
In any case, to date, no learned scientist has conclusively proved
that climate change is **not** due to human activity, whether this
be primarily or secondarily.
When bizarre claims are being made, it is up to those making them to
prove them, otherwise anyone can claim anything and be taken
seriously.
Bill.
In almost every news item there is mention of global warming.
Car accident global warming
Derailment global warming
And so on in boring fashion.
And when nothing happens well folks thats also due to, you guessed it,
global warming
Rich80105
2020-02-10 20:12:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 17:35:45 +1300
Post by BR
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:49:01 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
In any case, to date, no learned scientist has conclusively proved
that climate change is **not** due to human activity, whether this
be primarily or secondarily.
When bizarre claims are being made, it is up to those making them to
prove them, otherwise anyone can claim anything and be taken
seriously.
Bill.
In almost every news item there is mention of global warming.
Car accident global warming
Derailment global warming
And so on in boring fashion.
And when nothing happens well folks thats also due to, you guessed it,
global warming
Yes its all about money with you too, isn;t it George.

So how is this about money, George?:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/04/car-industry-petrol-diesel-ban-uk-electric-vehicles
Gordon
2020-02-11 06:02:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 17:35:45 +1300
Post by BR
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:49:01 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
In any case, to date, no learned scientist has conclusively proved
that climate change is **not** due to human activity, whether this
be primarily or secondarily.
When bizarre claims are being made, it is up to those making them to
prove them, otherwise anyone can claim anything and be taken
seriously.
Bill.
In almost every news item there is mention of global warming.
Car accident global warming
Derailment global warming
And so on in boring fashion.
And when nothing happens well folks thats also due to, you guessed it,
global warming
Yes its all about money with you too, isn;t it George.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/04/car-industry-petrol-diesel-ban-uk-electric-vehicles
So how was George's posting about Money?
George
2020-02-11 19:17:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 11 Feb 2020 06:02:56 GMT
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
Post by George
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 17:35:45 +1300
Post by BR
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:49:01 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
In any case, to date, no learned scientist has conclusively
proved that climate change is **not** due to human activity,
whether this be primarily or secondarily.
When bizarre claims are being made, it is up to those making them
to prove them, otherwise anyone can claim anything and be taken
seriously.
Bill.
In almost every news item there is mention of global warming.
Car accident global warming
Derailment global warming
And so on in boring fashion.
And when nothing happens well folks thats also due to, you guessed
it, global warming
Yes its all about money with you too, isn;t it George.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/04/car-industry-petrol-diesel-ban-uk-electric-vehicles
So how was George's posting about Money?
Its a typical communist trick.
Used to be all the rage during the 50s and 60s.
They change the subjects they have no answers for and hope to divert
attention away from the original and valid point
Mutlley
2020-02-10 20:21:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 17:35:45 +1300
Post by BR
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:49:01 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
In any case, to date, no learned scientist has conclusively proved
that climate change is **not** due to human activity, whether this
be primarily or secondarily.
When bizarre claims are being made, it is up to those making them to
prove them, otherwise anyone can claim anything and be taken
seriously.
Bill.
In almost every news item there is mention of global warming.
Car accident global warming
Derailment global warming
And so on in boring fashion.
And when nothing happens well folks thats also due to, you guessed it,
global warming
Someone tried to kink the Corona Virus to global warming.
Rich80105
2020-02-11 01:16:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mutlley
Post by George
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 17:35:45 +1300
Post by BR
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:49:01 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
In any case, to date, no learned scientist has conclusively proved
that climate change is **not** due to human activity, whether this
be primarily or secondarily.
When bizarre claims are being made, it is up to those making them to
prove them, otherwise anyone can claim anything and be taken
seriously.
Bill.
In almost every news item there is mention of global warming.
Car accident global warming
Derailment global warming
And so on in boring fashion.
And when nothing happens well folks thats also due to, you guessed it,
global warming
Someone tried to kink the Corona Virus to global warming.
Definitely kinky, still each to their own eh?
So was this article wrong?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
John Bowes
2020-02-11 04:37:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Mutlley
Post by George
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 17:35:45 +1300
Post by BR
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:49:01 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
In any case, to date, no learned scientist has conclusively proved
that climate change is **not** due to human activity, whether this
be primarily or secondarily.
When bizarre claims are being made, it is up to those making them to
prove them, otherwise anyone can claim anything and be taken
seriously.
Bill.
In almost every news item there is mention of global warming.
Car accident global warming
Derailment global warming
And so on in boring fashion.
And when nothing happens well folks thats also due to, you guessed it,
global warming
Someone tried to kink the Corona Virus to global warming.
Definitely kinky, still each to their own eh?
So was this article wrong?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
Dunno. Don't subscribe to the rag :)
George
2020-02-11 19:14:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 20:37:32 -0800 (PST)
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
Post by Mutlley
Post by George
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 17:35:45 +1300
Post by BR
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:49:01 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
In any case, to date, no learned scientist has conclusively
proved that climate change is **not** due to human activity,
whether this be primarily or secondarily.
When bizarre claims are being made, it is up to those making
them to prove them, otherwise anyone can claim anything and be
taken seriously.
Bill.
In almost every news item there is mention of global warming.
Car accident global warming
Derailment global warming
And so on in boring fashion.
And when nothing happens well folks thats also due to, you
guessed it, global warming
Someone tried to kink the Corona Virus to global warming.
Definitely kinky, still each to their own eh?
So was this article wrong?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=12301783
Dunno. Don't subscribe to the rag :)
Seeing that granny Herald is one of the lead fake news outlets I don't
blame you
Gordon
2020-02-11 06:00:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 17:35:45 +1300
Post by BR
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:49:01 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
In any case, to date, no learned scientist has conclusively proved
that climate change is **not** due to human activity, whether this
be primarily or secondarily.
When bizarre claims are being made, it is up to those making them to
prove them, otherwise anyone can claim anything and be taken
seriously.
Bill.
In almost every news item there is mention of global warming.
Car accident global warming
Derailment global warming
And so on in boring fashion.
And when nothing happens well folks thats also due to, you guessed it,
global warming
Then they switch to sea level rise. Yes it happening, has happened before
and has been lower than it is today. Still let us PANIC.
Gordon
2020-02-11 05:59:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BR
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:49:01 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
In any case, to date, no learned scientist has conclusively proved that climate change is **not** due to human activity, whether this be primarily or secondarily.
When bizarre claims are being made, it is up to those making them to
prove them, otherwise anyone can claim anything and be taken
seriously.
And so we arrive at Santa Clause being real or not. Then we can move onto
God. Or alien life or something else mind blowing.
Gordon
2020-02-11 05:57:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
The newly elected government in the UK under Boris Johnson has
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/04/car-industry-petrol-diesel-ban-uk-electric-vehicles
As the article says, there is no plan.
Early days - whether already too late or not is not known. Anyway, what's to stop them developing one?
Post by Tony
How will the electricity be generated, what will they do with the toxic
batteries when they are replaced and so on.
Waste disposal is a perennial dilemma worldwide, which is not necessarily to dismiss the point. Generations and disposal would presumably be incorporated in the plan though Johnson is invariably infinitely more engaged with the notion of power for its own sake than with any other thing you can think of.
Post by Tony
If. as many learned scientists believe, climate change is not primarily man
made then what good will this do.
Belief and faith occupy the same mentality.
Belief is wide ranging, from faith at one end to the understanding that
something will happen at the other. eg Britan will Brexit in 30 years time.
Or that it will rain Friday. Or that the tradesperson will turn up on time.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
That question is still being wilfully ignored
by the followers of the frenzied climate change hysteria.
Political rhetoric, nothing more.
Right or wrong, that doesn't negate current indications
<that global temperature and rainfall patterns are shifting
This is not in dispute. The question is what is causing it?

As the saying goes, "It's complicated". Dumbing things down is not helpful.
Loading...