Greta Thunberg / Climate Change Summit (5 Viewers)

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Yeah, we get it mate. You have a degree.

In fairness I don't bring it up often and it's directly relevant

 

---

[SkyBlueDom26]

In fairness I don't bring it up often and it's directly relevant

You mention it at least 12 times a week bruh

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

You mention it at least 12 times a week bruh

Objectively false buddy this is one out of a handful of times and it's always been in relation to climate change/pharma

 

[djr8369]

Thats just an overview. He has many videos if you care to find out where he demonstrates the factual science which has never been disputed. He has not been outed and is not a paid propagandist as you claim.

I mean he has...

Greenpeace Statement On Patrick Moore

Patrick Moore

As you like videos here’s one debunking many of his claims



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Paxman II]

I take your point djr but a debunking video can't be held up as a certified counter argument, we can all make those appear as we wish. So lets take a view from someone who holds no allegence or corporate sponsored or the like and agree to understand the real truth. Then make your own mind up if carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the levels of it are good or we are doomed!

 

[Liquid Gold]

Youtube is not a credible source. If you handed this in on a GCSE paper they'd fail you.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Youtube is not a credible source.

I dunno, works for David Icke...

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Youtube is not a credible source. If you handed this in on a GCSE paper they'd fail you.

GCSE students have a far better understanding of these issues than Paxman and his YouTube collection

 

[djr8369]

I take your point djr but a debunking video can't be held up as a certified counter argument, we can all make those appear as we wish. So lets take a view from someone who holds no allegence or corporate sponsored or the like and agree to understand the real truth. Then make your own mind up if carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the levels of it are good or we are doomed!

A debunking video has as much credibility as the video it was debunking though which is kind of the point. You can’t claim it’s not a certified counter argument and then use another video to try and counter. Particularly when the video I shared is a particularly thorough and well researched one with links to the literature so it can be checked and verified for efficacy.

Anyway, onto Dyson. No doubt a genius in his field but his argument basically seems to be CO2 is great as plants use it but misses the rather obvious point that the balance of atmospheric CO2 and plant life relies on people not chucking millions of tonnes a year into the atmosphere to disrupt said balance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Paxman II]

A debunking video has as much credibility as the video it was debunking though which is kind of the point. You can’t claim it’s not a certified counter argument and then use another video to try and counter. Particularly when the video I shared is a particularly thorough and well researched one with links to the literature so it can be checked and verified for efficacy.

Anyway, onto Dyson. No doubt a genius in his field but his argument basically seems to be CO2 is great as plants use it but misses the rather obvious point that the balance of atmospheric CO2 and plant life relies on people not chucking millions of tonnes a year into the atmosphere to disrupt said balance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm as previously said not going to get in too deep into this. and clearly you can't be convinced otherwise from your viewpoint. But co2 ballance has fallen dramatically to a few hundred parts per million. This is the crucial error everyone seems to be basing their arguments on that's its way too high when in fact its very low. Yes it appears we may have contributed but that is miniscule. Various 'sponsored' and bias politically scientific results and compilations have us beleiving we are hurting the atmosphere while others (some also sponsored I give you that) say otherwise. Listening to the emminent Prof. Dyson who at 90 odd years old and a lifetime of research and study makes a lot of sense. I don't entirely agree or perhaps fully understand his comprehension, but clearly the correlation of alarmist opinion of the 'Greta' supporters is wrong. Its fascinating none the less.

 

[djr8369]

I'm as previously said not going to get in too deep into this. and clearly you can't be convinced otherwise from your viewpoint. But co2 ballance has fallen dramatically to a few hundred parts per million. This is the crucial error everyone seems to be basing their arguments on that's its way too high when in fact its very low. Yes it appears we may have contributed but that is miniscule. Various 'sponsored' and bias politically scientific results and compilations have us beleiving we are hurting the atmosphere while others (some also sponsored I give you that) say otherwise. Listening to the emminent Prof. Dyson who at 90 odd years old and a lifetime of research and study makes a lot of sense. I don't entirely agree or perhaps fully understand his comprehension, but clearly the correlation of alarmist opinion of the 'Greta' supporters is wrong. Its fascinating none the less.

Why do you assume I can’t be convinced?

Fallen dramatically from what level and what were the climate conditions at the time? What was the suns radiance at the time and how did it compare to now?
Who is sponsoring the various climate scientists who say levels are relatively high?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Ok. Plants and trees absorb CO2 to grow and emit oxygen as a by-product, which we breath.

We're chopping down loads of trees, so less of the CO2 is being absorbed while having industrial practices which emit a great deal more CO2. So the amount of oxygen produced is decreasing while the amount of CO2 is increasing. Our air is of poorer quality.

Then taking into account the noxious chemicals as part of the industrial processes which is poisoning the sea and killing the plant life in the seas (which produce more oxygen than trees) this makes the situation even worse.

The CO2 is warming up the planet, creating increased areas of desert and flooding, melting ice caps resulting in higher sea levels covering even more land and reducing the amount of land that humans can comfortably live on, resulting in tension and wars as an ever increasing number of use try to survive on ever decreasing areas.

This is why some people refer to human as a 'cancer'. We're spreading out of control and all we're going to do is end up killing our host and thus ourselves.

While in the past CO2 levels may have been higher, this was pre-historic and the flora and fauna inhabiting the Earth at that time was much different as it had spent millions of years adapting to those conditions. Most of them are now extinct because current climatic conditions wouldn't let them and species today have evolved from them that can. The Earth will survive with the higher temperatures/CO2, humans will not. This is our fate, and we're speeding it up. Being selfish this is a massive problem in the making for humans and needs urgent action.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I'm as previously said not going to get in too deep into this. and clearly you can't be convinced otherwise from your viewpoint. But co2 ballance has fallen dramatically to a few hundred parts per million. This is the crucial error everyone seems to be basing their arguments on that's its way too high when in fact its very low. Yes it appears we may have contributed but that is miniscule. Various 'sponsored' and bias politically scientific results and compilations have us beleiving we are hurting the atmosphere while others (some also sponsored I give you that) say otherwise. Listening to the emminent Prof. Dyson who at 90 odd years old and a lifetime of research and study makes a lot of sense. I don't entirely agree or perhaps fully understand his comprehension, but clearly the correlation of alarmist opinion of the 'Greta' supporters is wrong. Its fascinating none the less.

CO2 not the only greenhouse gas brah

 

[shmmeee]

I don't care what she says or does, as long as she keeps triggering people over her turn of phrase, her absence from school, her mode of transport etc etc than she's alright by me because I find the reaction to her fucking hilarious

She’s an outstanding c**t detection device if nothing else.

 

[shmmeee]

And how would you keep track of every single person's CO2 output? Everyone would have to declare every single trip, how they took it, what they ate/drank etc. It'd have to be a police state.

What? Why would you. You tax at source. Tax is passed onto consumers, consumers pay tax based on usage. Or you assign rations at source and let business trade rations.

Ideally for most people/businesses it’ll just be the electric bill, for major polluters like heavy industry it’s easy enough to track. We already track every commercial property in the U.K. for business rates and know what is where.

 

[shmmeee]

I'm as previously said not going to get in too deep into this. and clearly you can't be convinced otherwise from your viewpoint. But co2 ballance has fallen dramatically to a few hundred parts per million. This is the crucial error everyone seems to be basing their arguments on that's its way too high when in fact its very low. Yes it appears we may have contributed but that is miniscule. Various 'sponsored' and bias politically scientific results and compilations have us beleiving we are hurting the atmosphere while others (some also sponsored I give you that) say otherwise. Listening to the emminent Prof. Dyson who at 90 odd years old and a lifetime of research and study makes a lot of sense. I don't entirely agree or perhaps fully understand his comprehension, but clearly the correlation of alarmist opinion of the 'Greta' supporters is wrong. Its fascinating none the less.

You’re just wrong here.



And Professor Dyson was a crank who’s specialism was not climate science. His main argument was “the models don’t fit reality” in 2009 when we didn’t know what we do today. As you can see, that’s clear nonsense:

 

[Paxman II]

There are many fake charts and that's one dude. Go research some more.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

What? Why would you. You tax at source. Tax is passed onto consumers, consumers pay tax based on usage. Or you assign rations at source and let business trade rations.

Ideally for most people/businesses it’ll just be the electric bill, for major polluters like heavy industry it’s easy enough to track. We already track every commercial property in the U.K. for business rates and know what is where.

That's exactly my point. I was arguing how and why you'd do that when for a much lower cost you could just use taxation and incentives.

 

[shmmeee]

There are many fake charts and that's one dude. Go research some more.

No. Because I’m a computer and data scientist and not a climate scientist. Humans evolved to specialise so I’ll just look at the experts who have dedicated their lives to this thanks. Rather than conspiracy nuts on the internet.

The chart isn’t fake. You just don’t like that you’ve invested in nonsense. But you have.

 

[shmmeee]

That's exactly my point. I was arguing how and why you'd do that when for a much lower cost you could just use taxation and incentives.

Ah sorry. Wrong end of the stick.

 

[Paxman II]

No. Because I’m a computer and data scientist and not a climate scientist. Humans evolved to specialise so I’ll just look at the experts who have dedicated their lives to this thanks. Rather than conspiracy nuts on the internet.

The chart isn’t fake. You just don’t like that you’ve invested in nonsense. But you have.

IT's ok to beleive what you beleive. Wewill just have to agree to disagree schmmmee but keep an open mind.