Things that annoy you (24 Viewers)

[itsabuzzard]

Jesus Christ.

You think there’s been no debate? We’ve had a hundred years of fucking debate. Most of it filled with credulous dipshits claiming it’s not real at every turn. Every model for thirty years has been accurate, 99% of scientists agree it’s happening and caused by human carbon output. For fucks sake you can see it in your lifetime

You do not know better because you’ve got a YouTube account and a contrarian attitude. FFS get a grip people or stay off the internet because clearly you don’t have the basic level of information hygiene to safely access it.

This is as bad as the morons claiming Covid wasn’t real during the pandemic. Just desperate to be the smartest person in the room with the edgy opinion. I dispair.

I thought you might have been able to do better than a series of ad hominems.

 

---

[Captain Dart]

I thought you might have been able to do better than a series of ad hominems.

I could demolish the rant but there is little point or value in doing so, the guy seems angry and life is too short.

All I will say is that contrarians are usually responsible for changes in widely held scientific beliefs and if you cannot disagree with a consensus you invite stagnation.

I've seen it said more than once that science changes once the leading proponents of a theory die and can't attack the bearers of new ideas that threaten their status (and all the benefits that come with it).

 

[itsabuzzard]

I could demolish the rant but there is little point or value in doing so, the guy seems angry and life is too short.

All I will say is that contrarians are usually responsible for changes in widely held scientific beliefs and if you cannot disagree with a consensus you invite stagnation.

I've seen it said more than once that science changes once the leading proponents of a theory die and can't attack the bearers of new ideas that threaten their status (and all the benefits that come with it).

It was the sort of ill-tempered and wholly predictable rant that prompted me to say I wasn't going to get drawn in to "discussing" specifics in my initial response. If that's "fucking debate" then, as you say, why bother?
Good on you for putting across your point of view. Keep it up.

 

[Sick Boy]

Doesn't it actually transfer the problem outside via the exhaust of heat? Which is the the product of what you're trying to achieve let alone the energy required to run it?
I say this as someone who has benefited from it on many occasions at work!

When it’s 30c inside, that’s the last thing on my mind!

 

[mmttww]

Do people not grasp that climate changes prior to the industrial revolution would happen over millennia, and that climate science shows an indisputable rise in global temperature over a fraction of that time with a spike in the last 60 years since car use surged and air travel became a thing? How is it even an argument!

 

[mmttww]

I've seen it said more than once that science changes once the leading proponents of a theory die and can't attack the bearers of new ideas that threaten their status (and all the benefits that come with it).

well I was being taught about global warming and climate change as an imminent threat 30 years ago.

I'd say that gives time and space for credible alternatives to be put fwd. Any you can share?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I could demolish the rant but there is little point or value in doing so, the guy seems angry and life is too short.

All I will say is that contrarians are usually responsible for changes in widely held scientific beliefs and if you cannot disagree with a consensus you invite stagnation.

I've seen it said more than once that science changes once the leading proponents of a theory die and can't attack the bearers of new ideas that threaten their status (and all the benefits that come with it).

Which of the following do you dispute?

Burning fossil fuels generates CO2

CO2 absorbs infra red from the Sun which drives the greenhouse effect

Humans burn fossil fuels

 

[Captain Dart]

Which of the following do you dispute?

Burning fossil fuels generates CO2

CO2 absorbs infra red from the Sun which drives the greenhouse effect

Humans burn fossil fuels

I've already told you I do not dispute them but I do not think they are the main drivers of any warming effects and I do not see an impending crisis that means we have to abandon reliable energy generation and adopt inefficient, unreliable and land/sea hungry methods. I see the 'problem' is more of a political drive and as mmttww already pointed out children were being indoctrinated to believe in a coming crisis as long as 30 years ago. Where is this crisis, I see no major problems occuring, in fact the earth is greener and more productive now that it was 50 years ago.

Other theories focus more on the earth's albedo (mainly cloud cover) being lower and higher sun activity.

Besides there is a hell of a lot more water vapour in the atmosphere than the 0.04% that is CO2 and that retains heat too but at different wavelengths to CO2.

I also already noted that the CO2 effect, whatever it is will saturate and be attenuated.

Let me ask you a question, how do you think the ice ages come and go without massive human intervention, the earth has been in ice ages far longer than interglacial periods. We are currently in an interglacial period.

 

[Ccfcisparks]

Why isnt there a limit on the amount of items you can take in the self service checkout at the supermarket.

Twats scanning a whole weeks worth of shopping holding up a queue of 10 people.

 

[chiefdave]

Why isnt there a limit on the amount of items you can take in the self service checkout at the supermarket.

Twats scanning a whole weeks worth of shopping holding up a queue of 10 people.

Supermarkets drive me mad but I've given up on ordering online as you end up missing things you need and have to go there anyway.

Why on Saturday mornings are they full of pensioners ambling around, people stopping for a chat, people on their phones etc etc. They should be places you get in and get out of as quickly as possible.

Went to Asda last weekend and there was one self service till working but because it's a small Asda they've got no actual tills anymore so everyone had to queue for that one.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I've already told you I do not dispute them but I do not think they are the main drivers of any warming effects and I do not see an impending crisis that means we have to abandon reliable energy generation and adopt inefficient, unreliable and land/sea hungry methods. I see the 'problem' is more of a political drive and as mmttww already pointed out children were being indoctrinated to believe in a coming crisis as long as 30 years ago. Where is this crisis, I see no major problems occuring, in fact the earth is greener and more productive now that it was 50 years ago.

Other theories focus more on the earth's albedo (mainly cloud cover) being lower and higher sun activity.

Besides there is a hell of a lot more water vapour in the atmosphere than the 0.04% that is CO2 and that retains heat too but at different wavelengths to CO2.
View attachment 43856
I also already noted that the CO2 effect, whatever it is will saturate and be attenuated.
View attachment 43855
Let me ask you a question, how do you think the ice ages come and go without massive human intervention, the earth has been in ice ages far longer than interglacial periods. We are currently in an interglacial period.
View attachment 43854

Sounds good. Nothing to worry about at all, let’s continue burning all the stuff we want.

 

[mmttww]

so we're comparing a process that's accelerated massively in c. half a century with evidence we can see and feel around us, happening as and when it was predicted, to processes that are measured in tens of thousands of years?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

so we're comparing a process that's accelerated massively in c. half a century with evidence we can see and feel around us, happening as and when it was predicted, to processes that are measured in tens of thousands of years?

Nah, Dartman has it sussed.