Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
In fairness I don't bring it up often and it's directly relevant
Yeah, we get it mate. You have a degree.
In fairness I don't bring it up often and it's directly relevant
You mention it at least 12 times a week bruh
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 dunno, works for David Icke...Youtube is not a credible source.
Youtube is not a credible source. If you handed this in on a GCSE paper they'd fail you.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
There are many fake charts and that's one dude. Go research some more.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?