General Discussion
No mention of how much it cost to save a tiny percent of CO2 emissions that will make zero difference to the planet apart from depriving plants of food.
Climate change has been happening for billions of years, however the "climate crisis" is a complete scam.
@burnside Just a genuine question here. Not asked emotively or with any intention to belittle okay? But if it is a scam;
1) It'd have to be a scam on a global level, a massive conspiracy involving the scientific community, the press, governments, business, educational institutions, etc across all national boundaries and cultures - not to mention rival powers who are at war and or poilitically, ideologically, religiously opposed to one another.
2) How feasible is that? Wouldn't it have been exposed by a rogue state, hackers and Assange figure by now?
3) If it's a scam, who is behind it?
I ask because I'm genuinely interested when people say it's a hoax and then add nothing else - never pointing to who is behind it.
What do you know that others don't and can you divulge that information without putting yourself in harms way?
There are plenty of scientists who do not subscribe to the "climate crisis" scam, though as politicans and the legacy media set the agenda you rarely hear their point of view. Thank goodness for alternative sources of media through the Internet. Politicians are addicted to control, it's what they do, and they appear to be taking their orders from the World Economic Forum which advocates Agenda 2030, a dystopian future where "you will own nothing and be happy". Global communism if you like.
@Burnside I know there are some scientists that don't subscribe to the mainstream view and I'm aware of criticisims levelled at many of them relating to lobbysits and corporation in certain industries that they're linked to. However if you're suggesting that the scientific consensus on anthropgenic climate change is in fact a worldwide conspiracy then why should we have any faith in any scientific field at all? You might as well stop going to your Doctor and listening to advice relating to weight loss, cancer, etc? Why trust anything founded on scientific data?
I've studied climate change and witnessed the methodology used first hand which has rigour and is iterative. I don't see how it's a hoax. However I do believe it is evident that climate change is being used by politicians taking orders from the likes of the World Economic Forum as a means to instil fear, create division and increase control of powerful elites over populations at a time when resources are dwindling and the negative effects of climate change will put pressure on the status quo. I can see why you and others see this as a form of dystopian communism as society is increasingly becoming like the matrix and citizens are being herded like cattle, Dystopian far left or dystopian far right, when it reaches the extremes there's little difference, where corporations are involved who make their wealth selling goods based on fuelling adictive consumerist wants people will still own stuff. People own the latest this or that now and think choice equates to freedom and who would need retail therapy if they were 'happy'?
If a person / government comes up with a clever scam, it gets copied by others. I believe the climate change is a scam. It controls people by fear. "Do this or your children will have no air to breath". All around the world governments have realised this is a brilliant control mechanism and copied it.
Natural climate change was the greatest thing to ever happen to this country. It made us an island.
I've lived by the sea all my life, sea levels haven't changed a millimeter. NASA's CO2 measurements are taken on top of a volcano. I've not seen any evidence that humans are affecting the climate at all.
The climate crisis is a con.
@Paul A belief is not the same as fact. So you really contest that 200 years of industrialization has had a negative impact on rising greenhouse gas emissions?
And just because somebody has lived by the sea in the Dawlish area all there life and based on their personal observations they say that sea levels haven't changed doesn't make it fact. It also can't be extrapolated and used as barometer for measuring sea level changes around the globe. Global C)2 measurements are not solely taken from the summit of one volcano.
I'm not questioning the fearmongering and doomsday messaging around climate change and their being alterior motives, but the argument that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax cannot be substantiated. However we cannot deny the instability and threat moving away from fossil fuels presents for so many powerful industries who clearly have a vested interest in undermining the scientific consensus to protect their greedy self interests - I never hear climate deniers even entrtaining this argument, it seems their beliefs are firmly fixed.
And what about pollution? Do you question the validity of scientific data recording increased levels of sewage? About levels of micro plastics in every square mtere of our oceans? Or is that all a scam too?
What about mass species extinction? Is that baloney? Have we not lost lots of species and their habitats? Is this just something we're told or is the data presented factual?
I seriously doubt that a state opposed to ours or the US, such as Iran, Russia or North Korea would not expose a global climate scam to undermine what we call 'Western Democracy' - it's too good an opportunity. Or some hacker or Julian Assange or Edward Snowden figure would uncover it. Surely having a fool like Boris Johnson as PM or George W Bush as President would've presented a huge risk to the global conspirators? How can Biden or Trump be trusted not to shoot their mouths off?
The problem is climate alarmists have cried wolf too many times.
Every decade since the 70s we've only had 10 years to save the planet, yet we are still here living on the coast with the same climate and the same sea level.
@Steve, yes I agree. The problem is that climate change has been communicated in terms of doomsday scenarios which has the effect of making people fearful, focusing on intrinsic needs and not collective endeavour, causing inertia. That and scientific data on a global scale and a magnitude that is often too abstract for people to comprehend and relate to their everyday lives. Plus if it really was such an emergency society would be on a wartime footing, with rationing of foods to meet basic need and a radical restructuring of how we live our lives from driving cars, flying, intensive agriculture and unsustainable global supply chains relating to many of our consumer goods. Sustaining the all important economy is more important to the establishment, because that sustains their power base, to them the environment on which we depend is secondary and something to exploit, which means human beings are somewhat parasitic.
So with melting glaciers, polar ice caps and arctic tundra you think sea levels aren't going to rise? We have far more storms as 1 in 100 year weather events are now more like 1 in 10. Dawlish has needed massive infrastructure to prevent damage to the se wall and train line since 2014. Cliff erosion has increased dramatically in the last 10 years too. We now have to build a rockfall shelter on top of a sea wall, which is effectively a tunnel. getting 150 years out of Brunel's railway is pretty good going, Victorians wanted to feel like they were on a ship, rather than a train and tunneling through Little Haldon was deemed to expensive. In retrospect they probably should've brought the line inland from Exminster and tunnelled through the hills and contoured around as in the long-run it would've been cheaper. This was planned in 1938, but the land was sold off to raise funds in WWII. The A379 will likely have to be re-routed inland in the future too, given how close the road at Lea Mount is to the sheer cliff face above Coryton Cove. From the taxpayers perspective continuing to fund infrastructure as if we're King Canute is futile. From a corporate construction firm and shareholder perspective it presents an opportunity for busness growth and politically it shifts public money to private ownership.