https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/
Didn't see that coming.
On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 01:21:19 -0700, larkim wrote:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/
Didn't see that coming.just as they were starting to come good as well
--Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but if Honda are on the right track about wanting to invest only in new techs then this could be the start of the end of ICE in F1 racing. Or at best the end of ICE F1 racing being seen as the pinnacle
This is a good time to punt work.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/
Didn't see that coming.
On 2/10/2020 9:21 pm, larkim wrote:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/
Didn't see that coming.
Would have though F1 would remain a good stepping-stone towards their carbon-neutral future.
geoff
On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 01:21:19 -0700, larkim wrote:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/
Didn't see that coming.
just as they were starting to come good as well
but, the way Japanese culture works.
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville
This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.
F1 is completely irrelevant to the real world.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/
Didn't see that coming.
On 2/10/2020 10:17 pm, alister wrote:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 01:21:19 -0700, larkim wrote:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/
Didn't see that coming.
just as they were starting to come good as well
I think that's the whole point. They've probably been wanting to get out
of F1 since year two of their McLaren deal but, the way Japanese culture works. there's no way they'd exit without a few race wins at least.
Now they've got a half-dozen wins under the belt (and another year with
RBR to go) they'll be thought of as successful rather than a joke.
On 10/2/2020 6:21 PM, larkim wrote:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/
Didn't see that coming.
So, Red Bull go cap in hand to Renault? "Sorry we didn't really mean all those things that we said about you". I can't see Mercedes wanting to
supply them, and I don't see them wanting to be supplied by Ferrari.
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 11:49:48 PM UTC-7, keithr0 wrote:
So, Red Bull go cap in hand to Renault? "Sorry we didn't really
mean all those things that we said about you". I can't see Mercedes
wanting to supply them, and I don't see them wanting to be supplied
by Ferrari.
Wonder if Red Bull stays in.
On Friday, 2 October 2020 at 10:17:53 UTC+1, alister wrote:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 01:21:19 -0700, larkim wrote:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/just as they were starting to come good as well
Didn't see that coming.
This is a good time to punt work.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but if Honda are on the right track about
wanting to invest only in new techs then this could be the start of the end of
ICE in F1 racing. Or at best the end of ICE F1 racing being seen as the pinnacle
of motor sport.
It seems to me to be inevitable that ICE powered cars will cease to be raced at
some point as anything other than historic curiosities, it's just the timing of when
that will happen that is up for debate.
I've now got an EV. Much nicer than petrol!!
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/
Didn't see that coming.
On 10/3/2020 1:26 PM, XYXPDQ wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 11:49:48 PM UTC-7, keithr0 wrote:
So, Red Bull go cap in hand to Renault? "Sorry we didn't really
mean all those things that we said about you". I can't see Mercedes
wanting to supply them, and I don't see them wanting to be supplied
by Ferrari.
Renault, as the engine supplier with the smallest number of teams (1
next year) is obliged to supply RB and AT.
Wonder if Red Bull stays in.
If they want to exit they'll have to sell the teams - shutting them down violates the new Concord-ish agreement, and I imagine the penalty clause
is large enough to take the fizz out of that idea.
On 10/3/2020 1:26 PM, XYXPDQ wrote:There doesn't seem to be a lack of buyers, the only question would be price. --- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 11:49:48 PM UTC-7, keithr0 wrote:
So, Red Bull go cap in hand to Renault? "Sorry we didn't really
mean all those things that we said about you". I can't see Mercedes
wanting to supply them, and I don't see them wanting to be supplied
by Ferrari.
Renault, as the engine supplier with the smallest number of teams (1
next year) is obliged to supply RB and AT.
Wonder if Red Bull stays in.
If they want to exit they'll have to sell the teams - shutting them down violates the new Concord-ish agreement, and I imagine the penalty clause
is large enough to take the fizz out of that idea.
--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
ItrCOs like he bought a copy of "Mussolini for Dummies"
but never made it past the first chapter. - Bret Stephens
On 10/2/2020 2:42 AM, larkim wrote:Yep, Peugeot e208. 180-200 mile range from a "full tank".
On Friday, 2 October 2020 at 10:17:53 UTC+1, alister wrote:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 01:21:19 -0700, larkim wrote:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/just as they were starting to come good as well
Didn't see that coming.
This is a good time to punt work.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but if Honda are on the right track about
wanting to invest only in new techs then this could be the start of the end of
ICE in F1 racing. Or at best the end of ICE F1 racing being seen as the pinnacle
of motor sport.
It seems to me to be inevitable that ICE powered cars will cease to be raced at
some point as anything other than historic curiosities, it's just the timing of when
that will happen that is up for debate.
I've now got an EV. Much nicer than petrol!!
Is it total, 100% run on plug in electricity?
What is the electricity cost to drive 100 miles?
On Sunday, 4 October 2020 at 03:59:43 UTC+1, a425couple wrote:
On 10/2/2020 2:42 AM, larkim wrote:Yep, Peugeot e208. 180-200 mile range from a "full tank".
On Friday, 2 October 2020 at 10:17:53 UTC+1, alister wrote:Is it total, 100% run on plug in electricity?
On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 01:21:19 -0700, larkim wrote:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/ >>>>>just as they were starting to come good as well
Didn't see that coming.
This is a good time to punt work.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but if Honda are on the right track about
wanting to invest only in new techs then this could be the start of the end of
ICE in F1 racing. Or at best the end of ICE F1 racing being seen as the pinnacle
of motor sport.
It seems to me to be inevitable that ICE powered cars will cease to be raced at
some point as anything other than historic curiosities, it's just the timing of when
that will happen that is up for debate.
I've now got an EV. Much nicer than petrol!!
What is the electricity cost to drive 100 miles?
It does between 3.5-4.0 miles per kWh and a kWh costs me about 15p (soon to be 5p
with a new EV car specific tariff) so currently costing about 4p per mile.
So about -u4 per 100 miles.
Will save me c. -u1000 fuel costs per year.
Charges at home overnight and gets me usually 3 days of commuting
per charge.
And the important bit - 8.1s 0-60 so pulling away from the
lights is fun!
On Sunday, 4 October 2020 at 03:59:43 UTC+1, a425couple wrote:
On 10/2/2020 2:42 AM, larkim wrote:Yep, Peugeot e208. 180-200 mile range from a "full tank".
On Friday, 2 October 2020 at 10:17:53 UTC+1, alister wrote:Is it total, 100% run on plug in electricity?
On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 01:21:19 -0700, larkim wrote:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/ >>>>>just as they were starting to come good as well
Didn't see that coming.
This is a good time to punt work.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but if Honda are on the right track about
wanting to invest only in new techs then this could be the start of the end of
ICE in F1 racing. Or at best the end of ICE F1 racing being seen as the pinnacle
of motor sport.
It seems to me to be inevitable that ICE powered cars will cease to be raced at
some point as anything other than historic curiosities, it's just the timing of when
that will happen that is up for debate.
I've now got an EV. Much nicer than petrol!!
What is the electricity cost to drive 100 miles?
It does between 3.5-4.0 miles per kWh and a kWh costs me about 15p (soon to be 5p
with a new EV car specific tariff) so currently costing about 4p per mile.
So about -u4 per 100 miles.
Will save me c. -u1000 fuel costs per year.
Charges at home overnight and gets me usually 3 days of commuting
per charge.
And the important bit - 8.1s 0-60 so pulling away from the
lights is fun!
On 10/5/2020 4:18 AM, larkim wrote:UK, Manchester / Liverpool area.
On Sunday, 4 October 2020 at 03:59:43 UTC+1, a425couple wrote:
On 10/2/2020 2:42 AM, larkim wrote:Yep, Peugeot e208. 180-200 mile range from a "full tank".
On Friday, 2 October 2020 at 10:17:53 UTC+1, alister wrote:Is it total, 100% run on plug in electricity?
On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 01:21:19 -0700, larkim wrote:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/ >>>>>just as they were starting to come good as well
Didn't see that coming.
This is a good time to punt work.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but if Honda are on the right track about
wanting to invest only in new techs then this could be the start of the end of
ICE in F1 racing. Or at best the end of ICE F1 racing being seen as the pinnacle
of motor sport.
It seems to me to be inevitable that ICE powered cars will cease to be raced at
some point as anything other than historic curiosities, it's just the timing of when
that will happen that is up for debate.
I've now got an EV. Much nicer than petrol!!
What is the electricity cost to drive 100 miles?
It does between 3.5-4.0 miles per kWh and a kWh costs me about 15p (soon to be 5p
with a new EV car specific tariff) so currently costing about 4p per mile.
So about -u4 per 100 miles.
Will save me c. -u1000 fuel costs per year.
Charges at home overnight and gets me usually 3 days of commuting
per charge.
And the important bit - 8.1s 0-60 so pulling away from the
lights is fun!
What country & city is this at?
On 6/10/2020 12:18 am, larkim wrote:Its zero hassle plugging the car in on the drive; even if I had to do that nightly
On Sunday, 4 October 2020 at 03:59:43 UTC+1, a425couple wrote:
On 10/2/2020 2:42 AM, larkim wrote:Yep, Peugeot e208. 180-200 mile range from a "full tank".
On Friday, 2 October 2020 at 10:17:53 UTC+1, alister wrote:Is it total, 100% run on plug in electricity?
On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 01:21:19 -0700, larkim wrote:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/ >>>>>just as they were starting to come good as well
Didn't see that coming.
This is a good time to punt work.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but if Honda are on the right track about
wanting to invest only in new techs then this could be the start of the end of
ICE in F1 racing. Or at best the end of ICE F1 racing being seen as the pinnacle
of motor sport.
It seems to me to be inevitable that ICE powered cars will cease to be raced at
some point as anything other than historic curiosities, it's just the timing of when
that will happen that is up for debate.
I've now got an EV. Much nicer than petrol!!
What is the electricity cost to drive 100 miles?
It does between 3.5-4.0 miles per kWh and a kWh costs me about 15p (soon to be 5p
with a new EV car specific tariff) so currently costing about 4p per mile.
So about -u4 per 100 miles.
Will save me c. -u1000 fuel costs per year.
Charges at home overnight and gets me usually 3 days of commuting
per charge.
And the important bit - 8.1s 0-60 so pulling away from the
lights is fun!
It's the 200 miles per full tank and overnight recharge thing that kills
the concept for me.
When they figure out a standard plug-in 'battery swap' service that
become mainstream, then it becomes more attractive. Or maybe just keep
a petrol vehicle for things other than commuting or other 'round town stuff.
geoff
On Monday, 5 October 2020 at 22:53:41 UTC+1, geoff wrote:4885092/
On 6/10/2020 12:18 am, larkim wrote:
On Sunday, 4 October 2020 at 03:59:43 UTC+1, a425couple wrote:
On 10/2/2020 2:42 AM, larkim wrote:
On Friday, 2 October 2020 at 10:17:53 UTC+1, alister wrote:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 01:21:19 -0700, larkim wrote:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/
Its zero hassle plugging the car in on the drive; even if I had to doIt's the 200 miles per full tank and overnight recharge thing thatYep, Peugeot e208. 180-200 mile range from a "full tank".Is it total, 100% run on plug in electricity? What is thejust as they were starting to come good as well
Didn't see that coming.
This is a good time to punt work.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but if Honda are on the right
track about wanting to invest only in new techs then this could be
the start of the end of ICE in F1 racing. Or at best the end of ICE
F1 racing being seen as the pinnacle of motor sport.
It seems to me to be inevitable that ICE powered cars will cease to
be raced at some point as anything other than historic curiosities,
it's just the timing of when that will happen that is up for
debate.
I've now got an EV. Much nicer than petrol!!
electricity cost to drive 100 miles?
It does between 3.5-4.0 miles per kWh and a kWh costs me about 15p
(soon to be 5p with a new EV car specific tariff) so currently
costing about 4p per mile.
So about -u4 per 100 miles.
Will save me c. -u1000 fuel costs per year.
Charges at home overnight and gets me usually 3 days of commuting per
charge.
And the important bit - 8.1s 0-60 so pulling away from the lights is
fun!
kills the concept for me.
When they figure out a standard plug-in 'battery swap' service that
become mainstream, then it becomes more attractive. Or maybe just keep
a petrol vehicle for things other than commuting or other 'round town
stuff.
geoff
that nightly it's much easier than pulling up at a petrol station every
5 days or so on the way to / from work.
My old petrol car's range was only 300 miles anyway (Fiat Panda) so 200
vs 300 isn't a big deal for me.
And if I ever did need a larger range for a one off journey, I've banked -u1000 a year of savings anyway, so the net position would still leave me financially better off.
There are zero downsides for me for this as a commuter car. I don't
think I'd go EV for the family car just yet as we've got an 8 seater van which just isn't an option yet (at an affordable price) in EV, and when
we're next allowed to travel on holiday the thought of travelling 1,500
miles to France with lots of charging stops doesn't seem hugely
appealing. But again, the operating costs might mean it's cheaper to
have a family car for day to day use and then hire something specific
for big journeys.
On Monday, 5 October 2020 at 22:53:41 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
On 6/10/2020 12:18 am, larkim wrote:Its zero hassle plugging the car in on the drive; even if I had to do that nightly
On Sunday, 4 October 2020 at 03:59:43 UTC+1, a425couple wrote:It's the 200 miles per full tank and overnight recharge thing that kills
On 10/2/2020 2:42 AM, larkim wrote:Yep, Peugeot e208. 180-200 mile range from a "full tank".
On Friday, 2 October 2020 at 10:17:53 UTC+1, alister wrote:Is it total, 100% run on plug in electricity?
On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 01:21:19 -0700, larkim wrote:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/ >>>>>>>just as they were starting to come good as well
Didn't see that coming.
This is a good time to punt work.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but if Honda are on the right track about
wanting to invest only in new techs then this could be the start of the end of
ICE in F1 racing. Or at best the end of ICE F1 racing being seen as the pinnacle
of motor sport.
It seems to me to be inevitable that ICE powered cars will cease to be raced at
some point as anything other than historic curiosities, it's just the timing of when
that will happen that is up for debate.
I've now got an EV. Much nicer than petrol!!
What is the electricity cost to drive 100 miles?
It does between 3.5-4.0 miles per kWh and a kWh costs me about 15p (soon to be 5p
with a new EV car specific tariff) so currently costing about 4p per mile. >>>
So about -u4 per 100 miles.
Will save me c. -u1000 fuel costs per year.
Charges at home overnight and gets me usually 3 days of commuting
per charge.
And the important bit - 8.1s 0-60 so pulling away from the
lights is fun!
the concept for me.
When they figure out a standard plug-in 'battery swap' service that
become mainstream, then it becomes more attractive. Or maybe just keep
a petrol vehicle for things other than commuting or other 'round town stuff. >>
geoff
it's much easier than pulling up at a petrol station every 5 days or so on the way
to / from work.
My old petrol car's range was only 300 miles anyway (Fiat Panda) so 200 vs 300
isn't a big deal for me.
There are zero downsides for me for this as a commuter car. I don't think I'd
go EV for the family car just yet as we've got an 8 seater van which just isn't
an option yet (at an affordable price) in EV, and when we're next allowed to travel on holiday the thought of travelling 1,500 miles to France with lots of
charging stops doesn't seem hugely appealing. But again, the operating costs might mean it's cheaper to have a family car for day to day use and then hire something specific for big journeys.
On 8/10/2020 12:17 am, larkim wrote:
On Monday, 5 October 2020 at 22:53:41 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
On 6/10/2020 12:18 am, larkim wrote:Its zero hassle plugging the car in on the drive; even if I had to do that nightly
On Sunday, 4 October 2020 at 03:59:43 UTC+1, a425couple wrote:It's the 200 miles per full tank and overnight recharge thing that kills >> the concept for me.
On 10/2/2020 2:42 AM, larkim wrote:Yep, Peugeot e208. 180-200 mile range from a "full tank".
On Friday, 2 October 2020 at 10:17:53 UTC+1, alister wrote:Is it total, 100% run on plug in electricity?
On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 01:21:19 -0700, larkim wrote:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/ >>>>>>>just as they were starting to come good as well
Didn't see that coming.
This is a good time to punt work.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but if Honda are on the right track about
wanting to invest only in new techs then this could be the start of the end of
ICE in F1 racing. Or at best the end of ICE F1 racing being seen as the pinnacle
of motor sport.
It seems to me to be inevitable that ICE powered cars will cease to be raced at
some point as anything other than historic curiosities, it's just the timing of when
that will happen that is up for debate.
I've now got an EV. Much nicer than petrol!!
What is the electricity cost to drive 100 miles?
It does between 3.5-4.0 miles per kWh and a kWh costs me about 15p (soon to be 5p
with a new EV car specific tariff) so currently costing about 4p per mile.
So about -u4 per 100 miles.
Will save me c. -u1000 fuel costs per year.
Charges at home overnight and gets me usually 3 days of commuting
per charge.
And the important bit - 8.1s 0-60 so pulling away from the
lights is fun!
When they figure out a standard plug-in 'battery swap' service that
become mainstream, then it becomes more attractive. Or maybe just keep
a petrol vehicle for things other than commuting or other 'round town stuff.
geoff
it's much easier than pulling up at a petrol station every 5 days or so on the way
to / from work.
My old petrol car's range was only 300 miles anyway (Fiat Panda) so 200 vs 300Then 90 seconds to refill it, then another 300 miles, and another 90 seconds, and so on ...
isn't a big deal for me.
geoffIt takes a lot longer than 90s to refill! For me at any rate it was 1min diversion
On Monday, 5 October 2020 at 18:40:34 UTC+1, a425couple wrote:
On 10/5/2020 4:18 AM, larkim wrote:UK, Manchester / Liverpool area.
On Sunday, 4 October 2020 at 03:59:43 UTC+1, a425couple wrote:What country & city is this at?
On 10/2/2020 2:42 AM, larkim wrote:Yep, Peugeot e208. 180-200 mile range from a "full tank".
On Friday, 2 October 2020 at 10:17:53 UTC+1, alister wrote:Is it total, 100% run on plug in electricity?
On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 01:21:19 -0700, larkim wrote:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/ >>>>>>>just as they were starting to come good as well
Didn't see that coming.
This is a good time to punt work.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but if Honda are on the right track about
wanting to invest only in new techs then this could be the start of the end of
ICE in F1 racing. Or at best the end of ICE F1 racing being seen as the pinnacle
of motor sport.
It seems to me to be inevitable that ICE powered cars will cease to be raced at
some point as anything other than historic curiosities, it's just the timing of when
that will happen that is up for debate.
I've now got an EV. Much nicer than petrol!!
What is the electricity cost to drive 100 miles?
It does between 3.5-4.0 miles per kWh and a kWh costs me about 15p (soon to be 5p
with a new EV car specific tariff) so currently costing about 4p per mile. >>>
So about -u4 per 100 miles.
Will save me c. -u1000 fuel costs per year.
Charges at home overnight and gets me usually 3 days of commuting
per charge.
And the important bit - 8.1s 0-60 so pulling away from the
lights is fun!
On Wednesday, 7 October 2020 at 22:40:23 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
On 8/10/2020 12:17 am, larkim wrote:
On Monday, 5 October 2020 at 22:53:41 UTC+1, geoff wrote:Then 90 seconds to refill it, then another 300 miles, and another 90
On 6/10/2020 12:18 am, larkim wrote:Its zero hassle plugging the car in on the drive; even if I had to do that nightly
On Sunday, 4 October 2020 at 03:59:43 UTC+1, a425couple wrote:It's the 200 miles per full tank and overnight recharge thing that kills >>>> the concept for me.
On 10/2/2020 2:42 AM, larkim wrote:Yep, Peugeot e208. 180-200 mile range from a "full tank".
On Friday, 2 October 2020 at 10:17:53 UTC+1, alister wrote:Is it total, 100% run on plug in electricity?
On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 01:21:19 -0700, larkim wrote:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/ >>>>>>>>>just as they were starting to come good as well
Didn't see that coming.
This is a good time to punt work.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but if Honda are on the right track about
wanting to invest only in new techs then this could be the start of the end of
ICE in F1 racing. Or at best the end of ICE F1 racing being seen as the pinnacle
of motor sport.
It seems to me to be inevitable that ICE powered cars will cease to be raced at
some point as anything other than historic curiosities, it's just the timing of when
that will happen that is up for debate.
I've now got an EV. Much nicer than petrol!!
What is the electricity cost to drive 100 miles?
It does between 3.5-4.0 miles per kWh and a kWh costs me about 15p (soon to be 5p
with a new EV car specific tariff) so currently costing about 4p per mile.
So about -u4 per 100 miles.
Will save me c. -u1000 fuel costs per year.
Charges at home overnight and gets me usually 3 days of commuting
per charge.
And the important bit - 8.1s 0-60 so pulling away from the
lights is fun!
When they figure out a standard plug-in 'battery swap' service that
become mainstream, then it becomes more attractive. Or maybe just keep >>>> a petrol vehicle for things other than commuting or other 'round town stuff.
geoff
it's much easier than pulling up at a petrol station every 5 days or so on the way
to / from work.
My old petrol car's range was only 300 miles anyway (Fiat Panda) so 200 vs 300
isn't a big deal for me.
seconds, and so on ...
It takes a lot longer than 90s to refill! For me at any rate it was 1min diversion
geoff
2-3 minutes filling, 30s payment, 1min back from diversion.
Not earth shattering. But when instead it's park at home, 15s to plug in, 15s to unplug, it's still a lot quicker.
And the diversion on the way home / to work to top up would always seem
to coincide with needing to rush home / to work. No such dilemmas with the EV.
On 9/10/2020 3:01 am, larkim wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 October 2020 at 22:40:23 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
On 8/10/2020 12:17 am, larkim wrote:It takes a lot longer than 90s to refill!-a For me at any rate it was 1min diversion
On Monday, 5 October 2020 at 22:53:41 UTC+1, geoff wrote:Then 90 seconds to refill it, then another 300 miles, and another 90
On 6/10/2020 12:18 am, larkim wrote:Its zero hassle plugging the car in on the drive; even if I had to do that nightly
On Sunday, 4 October 2020 at 03:59:43 UTC+1, a425couple wrote:It's the 200 miles per full tank and overnight recharge thing that kills >>>>> the concept for me.
On 10/2/2020 2:42 AM, larkim wrote:Yep, Peugeot e208. 180-200 mile range from a "full tank".
On Friday, 2 October 2020 at 10:17:53 UTC+1, alister wrote:Is it total, 100% run on plug in electricity?
On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 01:21:19 -0700, larkim wrote:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/ >>>>>>>>>>just as they were starting to come good as well
Didn't see that coming.
This is a good time to punt work.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but if Honda are on the right track about
wanting to invest only in new techs then this could be the start of the end of
ICE in F1 racing. Or at best the end of ICE F1 racing being seen as the pinnacle
of motor sport.
It seems to me to be inevitable that ICE powered cars will cease to be raced at
some point as anything other than historic curiosities, it's just the timing of when
that will happen that is up for debate.
I've now got an EV. Much nicer than petrol!!
What is the electricity cost to drive 100 miles?
It does between 3.5-4.0 miles per kWh and a kWh costs me about 15p (soon to be 5p
with a new EV car specific tariff) so currently costing about 4p per mile.
So about -u4 per 100 miles.
Will save me c. -u1000 fuel costs per year.
Charges at home overnight and gets me usually 3 days of commuting
per charge.
And the important bit - 8.1s 0-60 so pulling away from the
lights is fun!
When they figure out a standard plug-in 'battery swap' service that
become mainstream, then it becomes more attractive. Or maybe just keep >>>>> a petrol vehicle for things other than commuting or other 'round town stuff.
geoff
it's much easier than pulling up at a petrol station every 5 days or so on the way
to / from work.
My old petrol car's range was only 300 miles anyway (Fiat Panda) so 200 vs 300
isn't a big deal for me.
seconds, and so on ...
geoff
2-3 minutes filling, 30s payment, 1min back from diversion.
Not earth shattering.-a But when instead it's park at home, 15s to plug in, >> 15s to unplug, it's still a lot quicker.
Um, you forgot something totally insignificant - like the hours of charging between plugging in and
out !
And the diversion on the way home / to work to top up would always seem
to coincide with needing to rush home / to work.-a No such dilemmas with the >> EV.
I seldom go anywhere where I don't directly pass at least several petrol-stations, or within a few
minutes diversion. Dunno about others, but same for most city-dwellers in my country.
On 10/7/2020 4:11 AM, larkim wrote:
On Monday, 5 October 2020 at 18:40:34 UTC+1, a425couple wrote:OK.-a I'm glad to see it appears you have thought this
On 10/5/2020 4:18 AM, larkim wrote:UK, Manchester / Liverpool area.
On Sunday, 4 October 2020 at 03:59:43 UTC+1, a425couple wrote:What country & city is this at?
On 10/2/2020 2:42 AM, larkim wrote:Yep, Peugeot e208. 180-200 mile range from a "full tank".
On Friday, 2 October 2020 at 10:17:53 UTC+1, alister wrote:Is it total, 100% run on plug in electricity?
On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 01:21:19 -0700, larkim wrote:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/ >>>>>>>>just as they were starting to come good as well
Didn't see that coming.
This is a good time to punt work.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but if Honda are on the right track about
wanting to invest only in new techs then this could be the start of the end of
ICE in F1 racing. Or at best the end of ICE F1 racing being seen as the pinnacle
of motor sport.
It seems to me to be inevitable that ICE powered cars will cease to be raced at
some point as anything other than historic curiosities, it's just the timing of when
that will happen that is up for debate.
I've now got an EV. Much nicer than petrol!!
What is the electricity cost to drive 100 miles?
It does between 3.5-4.0 miles per kWh and a kWh costs me about 15p (soon to be 5p
with a new EV car specific tariff) so currently costing about 4p per mile. >>>>
So about -u4 per 100 miles.
Will save me c. -u1000 fuel costs per year.
Charges at home overnight and gets me usually 3 days of commuting
per charge.
And the important bit - 8.1s 0-60 so pulling away from the
lights is fun!
through and it financially makes sense for you.
Best of luck.
I opted away from that, because I felt since I
am now driving so little, the battery would die
of old age long before a gas engine would wear out.
I'm caused to think of three things:-a #1
Most of the UK's electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels,
-amainly natural gas (42% in 2016) and coal (9% in 2016). ...
The volume of electricity generated by coal and gas-fired power
stations changes each year, with some switching between the
two depending on fuel prices.
Electricity generation | Energy UK
#2, facebook picture https://www.facebook.com/Eightlugmafia/photos/a.3024933517525731/3675083585844051/
"To all the green people with green cars...
This is an electric charging station, powered by
a diesel motor (fenced in generator - but possibly LNG). "
and #3, on a recent day California Governor Newsom
announced that they will ban sales of new gasoline powered
cars, on same day as they were having electricity blackouts.
California Plans to Ban Sales of New Gas-Powered Cars in 15 ...www.nytimes.com rC| 2020/09/23 rC|
climate rC| california-ba...
Sep 23, 2020 rCo California plans to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars statewide by 2035,
Gov. Gavin Newsom said Wednesday, in a sweeping move ...
California Governor Signs Order Banning Sales Of New ... - NPRwww.npr.org rC| 2020/09/23 rC|
california-governor-signs-o...
Sep 23, 2020 rCo California will phase out the sale of all gasoline-powered vehicles by ... Although
it bans the sale of new gas cars and trucks after the 15-year ...
#2, facebook picture https://www.facebook.com/Eightlugmafia/photos/a.3024933517525731/3675083585844051/
"To all the green people with green cars...
This is an electric charging station, powered by
a diesel motor (fenced in generator - but possibly LNG). "
On 9/10/2020 10:35 am, geoff wrote:
On 9/10/2020 3:01 am, larkim wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 October 2020 at 22:40:23 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
On 8/10/2020 12:17 am, larkim wrote:It takes a lot longer than 90s to refill!-a For me at any rate it was
On Monday, 5 October 2020 at 22:53:41 UTC+1, geoff wrote:Then 90 seconds to refill it, then another 300 miles, and another 90
On 6/10/2020 12:18 am, larkim wrote:Its zero hassle plugging the car in on the drive; even if I had to
On Sunday, 4 October 2020 at 03:59:43 UTC+1, a425couple wrote:It's the 200 miles per full tank and overnight recharge thing that >>>>>> kills
On 10/2/2020 2:42 AM, larkim wrote:Yep, Peugeot e208. 180-200 mile range from a "full tank".
On Friday, 2 October 2020 at 10:17:53 UTC+1, alister wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 01:21:19 -0700, larkim wrote:Is it total, 100% run on plug in electricity?
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/just as they were starting to come good as well
Didn't see that coming.
This is a good time to punt work.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but if Honda are on the >>>>>>>>> right track about
wanting to invest only in new techs then this could be the
start of the end of
ICE in F1 racing. Or at best the end of ICE F1 racing being >>>>>>>>> seen as the pinnacle
of motor sport.
It seems to me to be inevitable that ICE powered cars will
cease to be raced at
some point as anything other than historic curiosities, it's >>>>>>>>> just the timing of when
that will happen that is up for debate.
I've now got an EV. Much nicer than petrol!!
What is the electricity cost to drive 100 miles?
It does between 3.5-4.0 miles per kWh and a kWh costs me about
15p (soon to be 5p
with a new EV car specific tariff) so currently costing about 4p >>>>>>> per mile.
So about -u4 per 100 miles.
Will save me c. -u1000 fuel costs per year.
Charges at home overnight and gets me usually 3 days of commuting >>>>>>> per charge.
And the important bit - 8.1s 0-60 so pulling away from the
lights is fun!
the concept for me.
When they figure out a standard plug-in 'battery swap' service that >>>>>> become mainstream, then it becomes more attractive. Or maybe just >>>>>> keep
a petrol vehicle for things other than commuting or other 'round
town stuff.
geoff
do that nightly
it's much easier than pulling up at a petrol station every 5 days
or so on the way
to / from work.
My old petrol car's range was only 300 miles anyway (Fiat Panda) so >>>>> 200 vs 300
isn't a big deal for me.
seconds, and so on ...
geoff
1min diversion
2-3 minutes filling, 30s payment, 1min back from diversion.
Not earth shattering.-a But when instead it's park at home, 15s to
plug in,
15s to unplug, it's still a lot quicker.
Um, you forgot something totally insignificant - like the hours of
charging between plugging in and out !
What does it matter if you're asleep / eating / shagging?
And the diversion on the way home / to work to top up would always seem
to coincide with needing to rush home / to work.-a No such dilemmas
with the
EV.
I seldom go anywhere where I don't directly pass at least several
petrol-stations, or within a few minutes diversion. Dunno about
others, but same for most city-dwellers in my country.
Yeah but then you have to mingle with people <shudder>.
'Social media' is hurting society more than plagues, famine and wars. It's potentially the start of
the downfall of the human race. I've taken to calling people who spend large parts of their lives
engaging with facebook et al 'Morlocks' (from HG Well's "The Time Machine") because that's where
they're heading. For 40 years I've held the belief that the human race is in a period of devolution
but I never dreamed it could be accelerated so much as it has in the last 5 years.
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville
This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.
Yeah but then you have to mingle with people <shudder>.
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville
This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.
Going by this post it seems that you're becoming increasingly 'millennial' in your views, relying
on what social media serves you up with for information (based on what you've stated or searched
for - the 'echo chamber effect').
'Social media' is hurting society more than plagues, famine and wars. It's potentially the start of
the downfall of the human race. I've taken to calling people who spend large parts of their lives
engaging with facebook et al 'Morlocks' (from HG Well's "The Time Machine") because that's where
they're heading. For 40 years I've held the belief that the human race is in a period of devolution
but I never dreamed it could be accelerated so much as it has in the last 5 years.
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville
This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.
On 9/10/2020 4:20 am, a425couple wrote:
I'm caused to think of three things:-a #1
Most of the UK's electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels,
-a-amainly natural gas (42% in 2016) and coal (9% in 2016). ...
The volume of electricity generated by coal and gas-fired power
stations changes each year, with some switching between the
two depending on fuel prices.
Electricity generation | Energy UK
So 51%. That means the other 49% isn't fossil fueled yeah? That ratio is also likely to change for the good in coming years. Also you can bet
that, not having to be light and mobile, the power stations are more efficient and cleaner than a car ICE.
On 09/10/2020 00:40, ~misfit~ wrote:
On 9/10/2020 4:20 am, a425couple wrote:
I'm caused to think of three things: #1
Most of the UK's electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels,
mainly natural gas (42% in 2016) and coal (9% in 2016). ...
The volume of electricity generated by coal and gas-fired power
stations changes each year, with some switching between the
two depending on fuel prices.
Electricity generation | Energy UK
So 51%. That means the other 49% isn't fossil fueled yeah? That ratio is also likely to change for the good in coming years. Also you can betThere is a dashboard showing live generation stats for the UK here:
that, not having to be light and mobile, the power stations are more efficient and cleaner than a car ICE.
<https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/live>
During the early part of lockdown it was announced that with lower
demand there had been no coal burnt to produce electricity for several weeks. The total coal use in 2019 was just over 2%.
On 9/10/2020 12:19 pm, ~misfit~ wrote:
On 9/10/2020 10:35 am, geoff wrote:
On 9/10/2020 3:01 am, larkim wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 October 2020 at 22:40:23 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
On 8/10/2020 12:17 am, larkim wrote:It takes a lot longer than 90s to refill!-a For me at any rate it was 1min diversion
On Monday, 5 October 2020 at 22:53:41 UTC+1, geoff wrote:Then 90 seconds to refill it, then another 300 miles, and another 90 >>>>> seconds, and so on ...
On 6/10/2020 12:18 am, larkim wrote:Its zero hassle plugging the car in on the drive; even if I had to do that nightly
On Sunday, 4 October 2020 at 03:59:43 UTC+1, a425couple wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/2/2020 2:42 AM, larkim wrote:It's the 200 miles per full tank and overnight recharge thing that kills
Yep, Peugeot e208. 180-200 mile range from a "full tank".On Friday, 2 October 2020 at 10:17:53 UTC+1, alister wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 01:21:19 -0700, larkim wrote:Is it total, 100% run on plug in electricity?
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/just as they were starting to come good as well
Didn't see that coming.
This is a good time to punt work.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but if Honda are on the right track about
wanting to invest only in new techs then this could be the start of the end of
ICE in F1 racing. Or at best the end of ICE F1 racing being seen as the pinnacle
of motor sport.
It seems to me to be inevitable that ICE powered cars will cease to be raced at
some point as anything other than historic curiosities, it's just the timing of when
that will happen that is up for debate.
I've now got an EV. Much nicer than petrol!!
What is the electricity cost to drive 100 miles?
It does between 3.5-4.0 miles per kWh and a kWh costs me about 15p (soon to be 5p
with a new EV car specific tariff) so currently costing about 4p per mile.
So about -u4 per 100 miles.
Will save me c. -u1000 fuel costs per year.
Charges at home overnight and gets me usually 3 days of commuting >>>>>>>> per charge.
And the important bit - 8.1s 0-60 so pulling away from the
lights is fun!
the concept for me.
When they figure out a standard plug-in 'battery swap' service that >>>>>>> become mainstream, then it becomes more attractive. Or maybe just keep >>>>>>> a petrol vehicle for things other than commuting or other 'round town stuff.
geoff
it's much easier than pulling up at a petrol station every 5 days or so on the way
to / from work.
My old petrol car's range was only 300 miles anyway (Fiat Panda) so 200 vs 300
isn't a big deal for me.
geoff
2-3 minutes filling, 30s payment, 1min back from diversion.
Not earth shattering.-a But when instead it's park at home, 15s to plug in,
15s to unplug, it's still a lot quicker.
Um, you forgot something totally insignificant - like the hours of charging between plugging in
and out !
What does it matter if you're asleep / eating / shagging?
Matters quite a bit if I'm half-way to where I want to be.-a Could have a few shags to fill in the
hours I guess ...
And the diversion on the way home / to work to top up would always seem >>>> to coincide with needing to rush home / to work.-a No such dilemmas with the
EV.
I seldom go anywhere where I don't directly pass at least several petrol-stations, or within a
few minutes diversion. Dunno about others, but same for most city-dwellers in my country.
Yeah but then you have to mingle with people <shudder>.
But it not Texas here, so unlikely to bump into texarserbate.
On 09/10/2020 00:40, ~misfit~ wrote:
On 9/10/2020 4:20 am, a425couple wrote:
I'm caused to think of three things:-a #1
Most of the UK's electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels,
-a-amainly natural gas (42% in 2016) and coal (9% in 2016). ...
The volume of electricity generated by coal and gas-fired power
stations changes each year, with some switching between the
two depending on fuel prices.
Electricity generation | Energy UK
So 51%. That means the other 49% isn't fossil fueled yeah? That ratio is also likely to change
for the good in coming years. Also you can bet that, not having to be light and mobile, the power
stations are more efficient and cleaner than a car ICE.
There is a dashboard showing live generation stats for the UK here:
-a-a <https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/live>
During the early part of lockdown it was announced that with lower
demand there had been no coal burnt to produce electricity for several
weeks. The total coal use in 2019 was just over 2%.
On 9/10/2020 3:08 pm, geoff wrote:
On 9/10/2020 12:19 pm, ~misfit~ wrote:
On 9/10/2020 10:35 am, geoff wrote:
On 9/10/2020 3:01 am, larkim wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 October 2020 at 22:40:23 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
On 8/10/2020 12:17 am, larkim wrote:It takes a lot longer than 90s to refill!-a For me at any rate it was 1min diversion
On Monday, 5 October 2020 at 22:53:41 UTC+1, geoff wrote:Then 90 seconds to refill it, then another 300 miles, and another 90 >>>>>> seconds, and so on ...
On 6/10/2020 12:18 am, larkim wrote:Its zero hassle plugging the car in on the drive; even if I had to do that nightly
On Sunday, 4 October 2020 at 03:59:43 UTC+1, a425couple wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/2/2020 2:42 AM, larkim wrote:It's the 200 miles per full tank and overnight recharge thing that kills
Yep, Peugeot e208. 180-200 mile range from a "full tank".On Friday, 2 October 2020 at 10:17:53 UTC+1, alister wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 01:21:19 -0700, larkim wrote:Is it total, 100% run on plug in electricity?
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/just as they were starting to come good as well
Didn't see that coming.
This is a good time to punt work.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but if Honda are on the right track about
wanting to invest only in new techs then this could be the start of the end of
ICE in F1 racing. Or at best the end of ICE F1 racing being seen as the pinnacle
of motor sport.
It seems to me to be inevitable that ICE powered cars will cease to be raced at
some point as anything other than historic curiosities, it's >>>>>>>>>>> just the timing of when
that will happen that is up for debate.
I've now got an EV. Much nicer than petrol!!
What is the electricity cost to drive 100 miles?
It does between 3.5-4.0 miles per kWh and a kWh costs me about 15p (soon to be 5p
with a new EV car specific tariff) so currently costing about 4p per mile.
So about -u4 per 100 miles.
Will save me c. -u1000 fuel costs per year.
Charges at home overnight and gets me usually 3 days of commuting >>>>>>>>> per charge.
And the important bit - 8.1s 0-60 so pulling away from the
lights is fun!
the concept for me.
When they figure out a standard plug-in 'battery swap' service that >>>>>>>> become mainstream, then it becomes more attractive. Or maybe just keep >>>>>>>> a petrol vehicle for things other than commuting or other 'round town stuff.
geoff
it's much easier than pulling up at a petrol station every 5 days or so on the way
to / from work.
My old petrol car's range was only 300 miles anyway (Fiat Panda) so 200 vs 300
isn't a big deal for me.
geoff
2-3 minutes filling, 30s payment, 1min back from diversion.
Not earth shattering.-a But when instead it's park at home, 15s to plug in,
15s to unplug, it's still a lot quicker.
Um, you forgot something totally insignificant - like the hours of
charging between plugging in
and out !
What does it matter if you're asleep / eating / shagging?
Matters quite a bit if I'm half-way to where I want to be.-a Could have a
few shags to fill in the
hours I guess ...
So more time to shag, sleep and eat! Sounds good to me. <g>
And the diversion on the way home / to work to top up would always seem >>>>> to coincide with needing to rush home / to work.-a No such dilemmas with the
EV.
I seldom go anywhere where I don't directly pass at least several
petrol-stations, or within a
few minutes diversion. Dunno about others, but same for most
city-dwellers in my country.
Yeah but then you have to mingle with people <shudder>.
But it not Texas here, so unlikely to bump into texarserbate.
He's just one of the worst examples. Sadly most 'people' (as in strangers with no vested interest
in being nice to others) are arseholes these days.
'Social media' is hurting society more than plagues, famine and wars.
It's potentially the start of
the downfall of the human race. I've taken to calling people who spend
large parts of their lives
engaging with facebook et al 'Morlocks' (from HG Well's "The Time
Machine") because that's where
they're heading. For 40 years I've held the belief that the human race is
in a period of devolution
but I never dreamed it could be accelerated so much as it has in the last 5 years.
~misfit~ <shaun.at.pukekohe@gmail.com> wrote:
'Social media' is hurting society more than plagues, famine and wars.
It's potentially the start of
the downfall of the human race. I've taken to calling people who spend
large parts of their lives
engaging with facebook et al 'Morlocks' (from HG Well's "The Time
Machine") because that's where
they're heading. For 40 years I've held the belief that the human race is
in a period of devolution
but I never dreamed it could be accelerated so much as it has in the last 5 years.
An overly apocalyptic view perhaps, Shaun, but quite credible in the light
of the dystopian reality that has emerged over the last few months.
Of course, in many ways social media can be a power for good by keeping families in contact, reuniting old friends, stimulating interesting discussion etc.
but as so often happens, there are always people or
organizations ready nefariously to exploit a useful innovation for their own political or commercial advantage.
Sadly, many of the poor saps who use Facebook fail to understand that they are not the customers but the product. The data they provide is sold to enable more and more accurately targeted advertising and, more
disturbingly, political propaganda.
Anyone who doubts this should read Chris WylierCOs book rCLMindf*ckrCY or watch
rCLThe Social DilemmarCY or rCLThe Great HackrCY, both on Netflix.
We have been warned!
On 9/10/2020 3:08 pm, geoff wrote:
On 9/10/2020 12:19 pm, ~misfit~ wrote:
On 9/10/2020 10:35 am, geoff wrote:
On 9/10/2020 3:01 am, larkim wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 October 2020 at 22:40:23 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
On 8/10/2020 12:17 am, larkim wrote:It takes a lot longer than 90s to refill!-a For me at any rate it
On Monday, 5 October 2020 at 22:53:41 UTC+1, geoff wrote:Then 90 seconds to refill it, then another 300 miles, and another 90 >>>>>> seconds, and so on ...
On 6/10/2020 12:18 am, larkim wrote:Its zero hassle plugging the car in on the drive; even if I had >>>>>>> to do that nightly
On Sunday, 4 October 2020 at 03:59:43 UTC+1, a425couple wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/2/2020 2:42 AM, larkim wrote:It's the 200 miles per full tank and overnight recharge thing >>>>>>>> that kills
Yep, Peugeot e208. 180-200 mile range from a "full tank".On Friday, 2 October 2020 at 10:17:53 UTC+1, alister wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 01:21:19 -0700, larkim wrote:Is it total, 100% run on plug in electricity?
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/just as they were starting to come good as well
Didn't see that coming.
This is a good time to punt work.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but if Honda are on the >>>>>>>>>>> right track about
wanting to invest only in new techs then this could be the >>>>>>>>>>> start of the end of
ICE in F1 racing. Or at best the end of ICE F1 racing being >>>>>>>>>>> seen as the pinnacle
of motor sport.
It seems to me to be inevitable that ICE powered cars will >>>>>>>>>>> cease to be raced at
some point as anything other than historic curiosities, it's >>>>>>>>>>> just the timing of when
that will happen that is up for debate.
I've now got an EV. Much nicer than petrol!!
What is the electricity cost to drive 100 miles?
It does between 3.5-4.0 miles per kWh and a kWh costs me about >>>>>>>>> 15p (soon to be 5p
with a new EV car specific tariff) so currently costing about >>>>>>>>> 4p per mile.
So about -u4 per 100 miles.
Will save me c. -u1000 fuel costs per year.
Charges at home overnight and gets me usually 3 days of commuting >>>>>>>>> per charge.
And the important bit - 8.1s 0-60 so pulling away from the
lights is fun!
the concept for me.
When they figure out a standard plug-in 'battery swap' service that >>>>>>>> become mainstream, then it becomes more attractive. Or maybe
just keep
a petrol vehicle for things other than commuting or other 'round >>>>>>>> town stuff.
geoff
it's much easier than pulling up at a petrol station every 5 days >>>>>>> or so on the way
to / from work.
My old petrol car's range was only 300 miles anyway (Fiat Panda) >>>>>>> so 200 vs 300
isn't a big deal for me.
geoff
was 1min diversion
2-3 minutes filling, 30s payment, 1min back from diversion.
Not earth shattering.-a But when instead it's park at home, 15s to
plug in,
15s to unplug, it's still a lot quicker.
Um, you forgot something totally insignificant - like the hours of
charging between plugging in and out !
What does it matter if you're asleep / eating / shagging?
Matters quite a bit if I'm half-way to where I want to be.-a Could have
a few shags to fill in the hours I guess ...
So more time to shag, sleep and eat! Sounds good to me. <g>
On 10/9/20 8:51 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:
On 9/10/2020 3:08 pm, geoff wrote:
On 9/10/2020 12:19 pm, ~misfit~ wrote:
On 9/10/2020 10:35 am, geoff wrote:
On 9/10/2020 3:01 am, larkim wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 October 2020 at 22:40:23 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
On 8/10/2020 12:17 am, larkim wrote:It takes a lot longer than 90s to refill! For me at any rate it
On Monday, 5 October 2020 at 22:53:41 UTC+1, geoff wrote:Then 90 seconds to refill it, then another 300 miles, and another 90 >>>>>> seconds, and so on ...
On 6/10/2020 12:18 am, larkim wrote:Its zero hassle plugging the car in on the drive; even if I had >>>>>>> to do that nightly
On Sunday, 4 October 2020 at 03:59:43 UTC+1, a425couple wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/2/2020 2:42 AM, larkim wrote:It's the 200 miles per full tank and overnight recharge thing >>>>>>>> that kills
Yep, Peugeot e208. 180-200 mile range from a "full tank". >>>>>>>>>On Friday, 2 October 2020 at 10:17:53 UTC+1, alister wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 01:21:19 -0700, larkim wrote:Is it total, 100% run on plug in electricity?
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/just as they were starting to come good as well
Didn't see that coming.
This is a good time to punt work.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but if Honda are on the >>>>>>>>>>> right track about
wanting to invest only in new techs then this could be the >>>>>>>>>>> start of the end of
ICE in F1 racing. Or at best the end of ICE F1 racing being >>>>>>>>>>> seen as the pinnacle
of motor sport.
It seems to me to be inevitable that ICE powered cars will >>>>>>>>>>> cease to be raced at
some point as anything other than historic curiosities, it's >>>>>>>>>>> just the timing of when
that will happen that is up for debate.
I've now got an EV. Much nicer than petrol!!
What is the electricity cost to drive 100 miles?
It does between 3.5-4.0 miles per kWh and a kWh costs me about >>>>>>>>> 15p (soon to be 5p
with a new EV car specific tariff) so currently costing about >>>>>>>>> 4p per mile.
So about -u4 per 100 miles.
Will save me c. -u1000 fuel costs per year.
Charges at home overnight and gets me usually 3 days of commuting >>>>>>>>> per charge.
And the important bit - 8.1s 0-60 so pulling away from the >>>>>>>>> lights is fun!
the concept for me.
When they figure out a standard plug-in 'battery swap' service that >>>>>>>> become mainstream, then it becomes more attractive. Or maybe >>>>>>>> just keep
a petrol vehicle for things other than commuting or other 'round >>>>>>>> town stuff.
geoff
it's much easier than pulling up at a petrol station every 5 days >>>>>>> or so on the way
to / from work.
My old petrol car's range was only 300 miles anyway (Fiat Panda) >>>>>>> so 200 vs 300
isn't a big deal for me.
geoff
was 1min diversion
2-3 minutes filling, 30s payment, 1min back from diversion.
Not earth shattering. But when instead it's park at home, 15s to
plug in,
15s to unplug, it's still a lot quicker.
Um, you forgot something totally insignificant - like the hours of
charging between plugging in and out !
What does it matter if you're asleep / eating / shagging?
Matters quite a bit if I'm half-way to where I want to be. Could have
a few shags to fill in the hours I guess ...
So more time to shag, sleep and eat! Sounds good to me. <g>Pssst, I have news for you!
If you are not FORCED to wait 5 hours to refill your "tank" one can also CHOOSE to wait 5 hours after your tank is filled in 2 minutes.
Surprising no?
Edmund
--It's all about individual use cases.
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
It's all about individual use cases.
For me, my car is my daily requirement to get to work, and then
sometimes in the evenings we run the kids around to various events
etc.
In this car (the EV) I will never need to do a journey longer than
100 miles as I have a diesel family vehicle for that sort of thing.
It is self evident that charging a battery takes longer to complete
than filling up with liquid fuel, but when there is zero
consequence of that time for me then the decision for me is correct
to take the lower fuel costs, the use of some reduction in fossil
fuels (the UK is broadly about 40/60 green vs fossil these days,
and moving in a more green direction), it can store some of the
solar that my house generates too, and it saves me diverting to
Tesco for cheap fuel, which I found to be an inconvenience. I'm no
EV evangelist; EVs won't work for everyone, and there are some
particular circusmtances of ours that mean that the monthly
capital cost of aquiring the vehicle is absolutely identical to
getting a petrol version of a similar spec car, so for us it was a no-brainer.
And I can happily report that as something to drive on the one hand
it feels and looks just like any ordinary auto-box hatchback, and
on the other hand it is the quickest 0-60 car I've owned.
Petrol / diesel cars aren't dead yet, and I'm not convinced that
those who try to convince others that EVs are perfectly acceptable replacements for their family car are really living in the real
world where the inconvenience of having to stop for 30-40 minutes
to recharge the car every 180 miles on a long family holiday trip
is a big deal breaker for lots of people. Never mind the business
car users who are used to being able to drive the length of the
country and find a quick and reliable fuelling stop after 300 miles
of driving.
But for me - a 42 mile daily commute, with easy on-drive charging,
it's a complete no-brainer and is saving me uuu.
On 10/7/2020 4:11 AM, larkim wrote:
On Monday, 5 October 2020 at 18:40:34 UTC+1, a425couple wrote:OK.-a I'm glad to see it appears you have thought this
On 10/5/2020 4:18 AM, larkim wrote:UK, Manchester / Liverpool area.
On Sunday, 4 October 2020 at 03:59:43 UTC+1, a425couple wrote:What country & city is this at?
On 10/2/2020 2:42 AM, larkim wrote:Yep, Peugeot e208. 180-200 mile range from a "full tank".
On Friday, 2 October 2020 at 10:17:53 UTC+1, alister wrote:Is it total, 100% run on plug in electricity?
On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 01:21:19 -0700, larkim wrote:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/ >>>>>>>>just as they were starting to come good as well
Didn't see that coming.
This is a good time to punt work.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but if Honda are on the
right track about
wanting to invest only in new techs then this could be the start
of the end of
ICE in F1 racing. Or at best the end of ICE F1 racing being seen
as the pinnacle
of motor sport.
It seems to me to be inevitable that ICE powered cars will cease
to be raced at
some point as anything other than historic curiosities, it's just >>>>>> the timing of when
that will happen that is up for debate.
I've now got an EV. Much nicer than petrol!!
What is the electricity cost to drive 100 miles?
It does between 3.5-4.0 miles per kWh and a kWh costs me about 15p
(soon to be 5p
with a new EV car specific tariff) so currently costing about 4p per
mile.
So about -u4 per 100 miles.
Will save me c. -u1000 fuel costs per year.
Charges at home overnight and gets me usually 3 days of commuting
per charge.
And the important bit - 8.1s 0-60 so pulling away from the
lights is fun!
through and it financially makes sense for you.
Best of luck.
I opted away from that, because I felt since I
am now driving so little, the battery would die
of old age long before a gas engine would wear out.
I'm caused to think of three things:-a #1
Most of the UK's electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels,
-amainly natural gas (42% in 2016) and coal (9% in 2016). ...
The volume of electricity generated by coal and gas-fired power
stations changes each year, with some switching between the
two depending on fuel prices.
Electricity generation | Energy UK
#2, facebook picture https://www.facebook.com/Eightlugmafia/photos/a.3024933517525731/3675083585844051/
"To all the green people with green cars...
This is an electric charging station, powered by
a diesel motor (fenced in generator - but possibly LNG). "
On 2020-10-08 8:20 a.m., a425couple wrote:
On 10/7/2020 4:11 AM, larkim wrote:
On Monday, 5 October 2020 at 18:40:34 UTC+1, a425couple wrote:OK.a I'm glad to see it appears you have thought this
On 10/5/2020 4:18 AM, larkim wrote:UK, Manchester / Liverpool area.
On Sunday, 4 October 2020 at 03:59:43 UTC+1, a425couple wrote:What country & city is this at?
On 10/2/2020 2:42 AM, larkim wrote:Yep, Peugeot e208. 180-200 mile range from a "full tank".
On Friday, 2 October 2020 at 10:17:53 UTC+1, alister wrote:Is it total, 100% run on plug in electricity?
On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 01:21:19 -0700, larkim wrote:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/ >>>>>>>>>just as they were starting to come good as well
Didn't see that coming.
This is a good time to punt work.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but if Honda are on the
right track about
wanting to invest only in new techs then this could be the start >>>>>>> of the end of
ICE in F1 racing. Or at best the end of ICE F1 racing being seen >>>>>>> as the pinnacle
of motor sport.
It seems to me to be inevitable that ICE powered cars will cease >>>>>>> to be raced at
some point as anything other than historic curiosities, it's just >>>>>>> the timing of when
that will happen that is up for debate.
I've now got an EV. Much nicer than petrol!!
What is the electricity cost to drive 100 miles?
It does between 3.5-4.0 miles per kWh and a kWh costs me about 15p
(soon to be 5p
with a new EV car specific tariff) so currently costing about 4p
per mile.
So about u4 per 100 miles.
Will save me c. u1000 fuel costs per year.
Charges at home overnight and gets me usually 3 days of commuting
per charge.
And the important bit - 8.1s 0-60 so pulling away from the
lights is fun!
through and it financially makes sense for you.
Best of luck.
I opted away from that, because I felt since I
am now driving so little, the battery would die
of old age long before a gas engine would wear out.
I'm caused to think of three things:a #1
Most of the UK's electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels,
aamainly natural gas (42% in 2016) and coal (9% in 2016). ...
The volume of electricity generated by coal and gas-fired power
stations changes each year, with some switching between the
two depending on fuel prices.
Electricity generation | Energy UK
#2, facebook picture
https://www.facebook.com/Eightlugmafia/photos/a.3024933517525731/3675083585844051/
"To all the green people with green cars...
This is an electric charging station, powered by
a diesel motor (fenced in generator - but possibly LNG). "
What's your proof that the generator is even connected to the charging station, Lee?
And even if it is, so what?
Does that make electric vehicles a bad idea in general? No.
On 10/9/2020 2:07 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-10-08 8:20 a.m., a425couple wrote:
On 10/7/2020 4:11 AM, larkim wrote:
On Monday, 5 October 2020 at 18:40:34 UTC+1, a425couple wrote:OK.a I'm glad to see it appears you have thought this
On 10/5/2020 4:18 AM, larkim wrote:UK, Manchester / Liverpool area.
On Sunday, 4 October 2020 at 03:59:43 UTC+1, a425couple wrote:What country & city is this at?
On 10/2/2020 2:42 AM, larkim wrote:Yep, Peugeot e208. 180-200 mile range from a "full tank".
On Friday, 2 October 2020 at 10:17:53 UTC+1, alister wrote:Is it total, 100% run on plug in electricity?
On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 01:21:19 -0700, larkim wrote:
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/just as they were starting to come good as well
Didn't see that coming.
This is a good time to punt work.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but if Honda are on the >>>>>>>> right track about
wanting to invest only in new techs then this could be the start >>>>>>>> of the end of
ICE in F1 racing. Or at best the end of ICE F1 racing being seen >>>>>>>> as the pinnacle
of motor sport.
It seems to me to be inevitable that ICE powered cars will cease >>>>>>>> to be raced at
some point as anything other than historic curiosities, it's
just the timing of when
that will happen that is up for debate.
I've now got an EV. Much nicer than petrol!!
What is the electricity cost to drive 100 miles?
It does between 3.5-4.0 miles per kWh and a kWh costs me about 15p >>>>>> (soon to be 5p
with a new EV car specific tariff) so currently costing about 4p
per mile.
So about u4 per 100 miles.
Will save me c. u1000 fuel costs per year.
Charges at home overnight and gets me usually 3 days of commuting
per charge.
And the important bit - 8.1s 0-60 so pulling away from the
lights is fun!
through and it financially makes sense for you.
Best of luck.
I opted away from that, because I felt since I
am now driving so little, the battery would die
of old age long before a gas engine would wear out.
I'm caused to think of three things:a #1
Most of the UK's electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels,
aamainly natural gas (42% in 2016) and coal (9% in 2016). ...
The volume of electricity generated by coal and gas-fired power
stations changes each year, with some switching between the
two depending on fuel prices.
Electricity generation | Energy UK
#2, facebook picture
https://www.facebook.com/Eightlugmafia/photos/a.3024933517525731/3675083585844051/
"To all the green people with green cars...
This is an electric charging station, powered by
a diesel motor (fenced in generator - but possibly LNG). "
What's your proof that the generator is even connected to the charging
station, Lee?
And even if it is, so what?
Does that make electric vehicles a bad idea in general? No.
Makes them greenwash, like so many other 'sustainability' initiatives.
An interesting read thanks for writing it. I can see for your usage
it has much to offer. Is there any sort of heater in the car for the
coldest winter and do you yet know how much deterioration in
performance there is in cold temperature?
Bob.
On Friday, 9 October 2020 at 12:41:15 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
On 10/9/20 8:51 AM, ~misfit~ wrote:It's all about individual use cases.
On 9/10/2020 3:08 pm, geoff wrote:Pssst, I have news for you!
On 9/10/2020 12:19 pm, ~misfit~ wrote:
On 9/10/2020 10:35 am, geoff wrote:
On 9/10/2020 3:01 am, larkim wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 October 2020 at 22:40:23 UTC+1, geoff wrote:
On 8/10/2020 12:17 am, larkim wrote:It takes a lot longer than 90s to refill! For me at any rate it
On Monday, 5 October 2020 at 22:53:41 UTC+1, geoff wrote:Then 90 seconds to refill it, then another 300 miles, and another 90 >>>>>>>> seconds, and so on ...
On 6/10/2020 12:18 am, larkim wrote:Its zero hassle plugging the car in on the drive; even if I had >>>>>>>>> to do that nightly
On Sunday, 4 October 2020 at 03:59:43 UTC+1, a425couple wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/2/2020 2:42 AM, larkim wrote:It's the 200 miles per full tank and overnight recharge thing >>>>>>>>>> that kills
Yep, Peugeot e208. 180-200 mile range from a "full tank". >>>>>>>>>>>On Friday, 2 October 2020 at 10:17:53 UTC+1, alister wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 01:21:19 -0700, larkim wrote:Is it total, 100% run on plug in electricity?
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/just as they were starting to come good as well
Didn't see that coming.
This is a good time to punt work.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but if Honda are on the >>>>>>>>>>>>> right track about
wanting to invest only in new techs then this could be the >>>>>>>>>>>>> start of the end of
ICE in F1 racing. Or at best the end of ICE F1 racing being >>>>>>>>>>>>> seen as the pinnacle
of motor sport.
It seems to me to be inevitable that ICE powered cars will >>>>>>>>>>>>> cease to be raced at
some point as anything other than historic curiosities, it's >>>>>>>>>>>>> just the timing of when
that will happen that is up for debate.
I've now got an EV. Much nicer than petrol!!
What is the electricity cost to drive 100 miles?
It does between 3.5-4.0 miles per kWh and a kWh costs me about >>>>>>>>>>> 15p (soon to be 5p
with a new EV car specific tariff) so currently costing about >>>>>>>>>>> 4p per mile.
So about -u4 per 100 miles.
Will save me c. -u1000 fuel costs per year.
Charges at home overnight and gets me usually 3 days of commuting >>>>>>>>>>> per charge.
And the important bit - 8.1s 0-60 so pulling away from the >>>>>>>>>>> lights is fun!
the concept for me.
When they figure out a standard plug-in 'battery swap' service that >>>>>>>>>> become mainstream, then it becomes more attractive. Or maybe >>>>>>>>>> just keep
a petrol vehicle for things other than commuting or other 'round >>>>>>>>>> town stuff.
geoff
it's much easier than pulling up at a petrol station every 5 days >>>>>>>>> or so on the way
to / from work.
My old petrol car's range was only 300 miles anyway (Fiat Panda) >>>>>>>>> so 200 vs 300
isn't a big deal for me.
geoff
was 1min diversion
2-3 minutes filling, 30s payment, 1min back from diversion.
Not earth shattering. But when instead it's park at home, 15s to >>>>>>> plug in,
15s to unplug, it's still a lot quicker.
Um, you forgot something totally insignificant - like the hours of >>>>>> charging between plugging in and out !
What does it matter if you're asleep / eating / shagging?
Matters quite a bit if I'm half-way to where I want to be. Could have
a few shags to fill in the hours I guess ...
So more time to shag, sleep and eat! Sounds good to me. <g>
If you are not FORCED to wait 5 hours to refill your "tank" one can also
CHOOSE to wait 5 hours after your tank is filled in 2 minutes.
Surprising no?
Edmund
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
For me, my car is my daily requirement to get to work, and then sometimes in the evenings we run the kids around to various events etc.
In this car (the EV) I will never need to do a journey longer than 100 miles as I
have a diesel family vehicle for that sort of thing.
It is self evident that charging a battery takes longer to complete than filling
up with liquid fuel, but when there is zero consequence of that time for me then the decision for me is correct to take the lower fuel costs, the use of some reduction in fossil fuels (the UK is broadly about 40/60 green vs
fossil these days, and moving in a more green direction), it can store some of the solar that my house generates too, and it saves me diverting to
Tesco for cheap fuel, which I found to be an inconvenience. I'm no EV evangelist; EVs won't work for everyone, and there are some particular circusmtances of ours that mean that the monthly capital cost of aquiring
the vehicle is absolutely identical to getting a petrol version of a similar spec
car, so for us it was a no-brainer.
And I can happily report that as something to drive on the one hand it feels and looks just like any ordinary auto-box hatchback, and on the other hand it is the quickest 0-60 car I've owned.
Petrol / diesel cars aren't dead yet, and I'm not convinced that those who try
to convince others that EVs are perfectly acceptable replacements for their family car are really living in the real world where the inconvenience of having to stop for 30-40 minutes to recharge the car every 180 miles on a long family holiday trip is a big deal breaker for lots of people. Never mind
the business car users who are used to being able to drive the length
of the country and find a quick and reliable fuelling stop after 300 miles of driving.
But for me - a 42 mile daily commute, with easy on-drive charging, it's a complete no-brainer and is saving me -u-u-u.
Although I am all for clean air and such I do not think CO2 or NOx
is any problem, no matter how many time the real climate deniers
u the ones that deny the 4.5 billion years of climate change that
is- try to push that message.
I like to separate or not include the opollutiono caused by
generating electricity because that is up to the energy companies,
energy CAN be made pollution free and the way it is generated can
change in the future.
Oh I think they have always been arseholes, itrCOs just that the anonymity of the internet enables them to be arseholes in public without fear of retribution, thus boosting their sad little egos.
Sir Tim <bentley@brooklands.co.uk> writes:
Oh I think they have always been arseholes, itrCOs just that the anonymity of
the internet enables them to be arseholes in public without fear of
retribution, thus boosting their sad little egos.
The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/215499488_8pSZr-L-2.jpg
Phil
In article <rlrthp$6rq$1@dont-email.me>,
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
Although I am all for clean air and such I do not think CO2 or NOx
is any problem, no matter how many time the real climate deniers
rCo the ones that deny the 4.5 billion years of climate change that
is- try to push that message.
Yes, despite serious attempts by activists to airbrush climate
history out of existence.
I like to separate or not include the rCYpollutionrCo caused by
generating electricity because that is up to the energy companies,
energy CAN be made pollution free and the way it is generated can
change in the future.
What about the pollution being created to mine the minerals for wind
farms and solar panels and what happens to these items after their
short life?
Wind power and solar are both intermittent, expensive and in the case
of wind kills flying animals at an alarming rate - nasty things.
Nuclear the only way.
woman from XR interviewed by Andrew Neil (or should I say
slaughtered) last year has now left XR and is promoting nuclear. I'm
with her now? :-)
Bob.
On 10/10/20 11:45 AM, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rlrthp$6rq$1@dont-email.me>,
-a-a-a Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
Although I am all for clean air and such I do not think CO2 or NOx
is any-a problem, no matter how many time the real climate deniers
rCo the ones that deny the 4.5 billion years of climate change that
is- try to push that message.
Yes, despite serious attempts by activists to airbrush climate
history out of existence.
Bob if you have invested zero time in investigating the climate
propaganda like yourself... you better don't make remarks as if you know
the slightest thing about it because you obviously don't.
For your information, the climate cryers including NASA are the ones rewriting history and changing data to fit their propaganda.
Check it before you reply!
I like to separate or not include the rCYpollutionrCo caused by
generating electricity because that is up to the energy companies,
energy CAN be made pollution free and the way it is generated can
change in the future.
What about the pollution being created to mine the minerals for wind
farms and solar panels and what happens to these items after their
short life?
There is no difference between this an all other things so this is a non-argument.
Wind power and solar are both intermittent, expensive and in the case
of wind kills flying animals at an alarming rate - nasty things.
Things can be solves and I don't know how bas is with those killing
anymals, do you?
Figures?
Nuclear the only way.
No it is not, and it is very expensive.
My only concern about saying that is that the
woman from XR interviewed by Andrew Neil (or should I say
slaughtered) last year has now left XR and is promoting nuclear. I'm
with her now? :-)
Bob.
That said I was going through the KFC drive-through last night for a rare treat when I noticed the
guy in front of me leaning over and rummaging in the back seat. I could see work clothes, a hi-vis
jacket, wet-weather gear etc. He didn't pull forward straight away when the car in front left,
instead driving to the left so he could get out and open the back door and continue searching.
I figured he'd misplaced his wallet so got out of my car with my 'paywave' card in my hand and
asked him as much, said I'd pay for his dinner (I'm by no means well off but I'd hate to be in that
position). He said he'd just found it, thanks. When I got to the window the cashier told me mine
was paid for by the guy in front (who was now long gone).
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville
This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.
On 10/10/20 11:45 AM, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rlrthp$6rq$1@dont-email.me>,
-a-a-a Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
Although I am all for clean air and such I do not think CO2 or NOx
is any-a problem, no matter how many time the real climate deniers
rCo the ones that deny the 4.5 billion years of climate change that
is- try to push that message.
Yes, despite serious attempts by activists to airbrush climate
history out of existence.
Bob if you have invested zero time in investigating the climate
propaganda like yourself... you better don't make remarks as if you know
the slightest thing about it because you obviously don't.
For your information, the climate cryers including NASA are the ones rewriting history and changing data to fit their propaganda.
Check it before you reply!
On 10/10/20 11:45 AM, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rlrthp$6rq$1@dont-email.me>,
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
Although I am all for clean air and such I do not think CO2 or NOx
is any problem, no matter how many time the real climate deniers
y the ones that deny the 4.5 billion years of climate change that
is- try to push that message.
Yes, despite serious attempts by activists to airbrush climate
history out of existence.
Bob if you have invested zero time in investigating the climate
propaganda like yourself... you better don't make remarks as if you
know the slightest thing about it because you obviously don't.
For your information, the climate cryers including NASA are the
ones rewriting history and changing data to fit their propaganda.
Check it before you reply!
I like to separate or not include the opollutionA caused by
generating electricity because that is up to the energy
companies, energy CAN be made pollution free and the way it is
generated can change in the future.
What about the pollution being created to mine the minerals for
wind farms and solar panels and what happens to these items after
their short life?
There is no difference between this an all other things so this is
a non-argument.
In article <rls6dc$utk$1@dont-email.me>,
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 10/10/20 11:45 AM, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rlrthp$6rq$1@dont-email.me>,
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
Although I am all for clean air and such I do not think CO2 or NOx
is any problem, no matter how many time the real climate deniers
-L the ones that deny the 4.5 billion years of climate change that
is- try to push that message.
Yes, despite serious attempts by activists to airbrush climate
history out of existence.
Bob if you have invested zero time in investigating the climate
propaganda like yourself... you better don't make remarks as if you
know the slightest thing about it because you obviously don't.
What?
Read again what I wrote.
For your information, the climate cryers including NASA are the
ones rewriting history and changing data to fit their propaganda.
Check it before you reply!
I know! I'm agreeing with you. Read again.
Many orgs like NASA cooling the figures for the past and warming the
present, completely corrupt.
In article <rls6dc$utk$1@dont-email.me>,
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 10/10/20 11:45 AM, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rlrthp$6rq$1@dont-email.me>,
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
Although I am all for clean air and such I do not think CO2 or NOx
is any problem, no matter how many time the real climate deniers
-L the ones that deny the 4.5 billion years of climate change that
is- try to push that message.
Yes, despite serious attempts by activists to airbrush climate
history out of existence.
Bob if you have invested zero time in investigating the climate
propaganda like yourself... you better don't make remarks as if you
know the slightest thing about it because you obviously don't.
What?
Read again what I wrote.
For your information, the climate cryers including NASA are the
ones rewriting history and changing data to fit their propaganda.
Check it before you reply!
I know! I'm agreeing with you. Read again.
Many orgs like NASA cooling the figures for the past and warming the
present, completely corrupt.
I like to separate or not include the rCopollution-A caused by
generating electricity because that is up to the energy
companies, energy CAN be made pollution free and the way it is
generated can change in the future.
What about the pollution being created to mine the minerals for
wind farms and solar panels and what happens to these items after
their short life?
There is no difference between this an all other things so this is
a non-argument.
I think there is.
Bob.
Or... ...just scientists doing science.
On Saturday, October 10, 2020 at 9:56:48 AM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:
Or... ...just scientists doing science.
ya.... you... could.... be ....right....
but.... any......way..... shove.... the
dot dot dots.... up .... your....
reamed..... out....gay........ fucking....
rotten...... asshole.....you.... cornhole........specialist......................
From the interviews at the track Saturday it doesn't look like anyone is jumping up and down to get an engine contract to supply Red Bull.
Could the FIA force one of the engine builders to supply RB "for the good of the sport"?
Yeah but then you have to mingle with people <shudder>.
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville
This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.
XYXPDQ <qwrtz123@gmail.com> wrote:
From the interviews at the track Saturday it doesn't look like anyone is jumping up and down to get an engine contract to supply Red Bull.
Could the FIA force one of the engine builders to supply RB "for the good of the sport"?
It would seem so. Apparently, under the latest iteration of the Concord Agreement the engine builder who supplies the fewest teams (i.e. Renault) would be obliged to supply RB.
--
Sir Tim
On 10/10/20 11:45 AM, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rlrthp$6rq$1...@dont-email.me>,
Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Although I am all for clean air and such I do not think CO2 or NOx
is any problem, no matter how many time the real climate deniers
rCo the ones that deny the 4.5 billion years of climate change that
is- try to push that message.
Yes, despite serious attempts by activists to airbrush climate
history out of existence.
Bob if you have invested zero time in investigating the climate
propaganda like yourself... you better don't make remarks as if you know
the slightest thing about it because you obviously don't.
For your information, the climate cryers including NASA are the ones rewriting history and changing data to fit their propaganda.
Check it before you reply!
I like to separate or not include the rCYpollutionrCo caused by
generating electricity because that is up to the energy companies,
energy CAN be made pollution free and the way it is generated can
change in the future.
What about the pollution being created to mine the minerals for wind
farms and solar panels and what happens to these items after their
short life?
There is no difference between this an all other things so this is a non-argument.
Wind power and solar are both intermittent, expensive and in the case
of wind kills flying animals at an alarming rate - nasty things.
Things can be solves and I don't know how bas is with those killing
anymals, do you?
Figures?
Nuclear the only way.
No it is not, and it is very expensive.
My only concern about saying that is that the
woman from XR interviewed by Andrew Neil (or should I say
slaughtered) last year has now left XR and is promoting nuclear. I'm
with her now? :-)
Bob.
--I should get you to spend a week with my sister who is a Professor of
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
On Saturday, October 10, 2020 at 11:45:59 PM UTC-7, Sir Tim wrote:
XYXPDQ <qwrtz123@gmail.com> wrote:
From the interviews at the track Saturday it doesn't look like anyone is >>> jumping up and down to get an engine contract to supply Red Bull.
Could the FIA force one of the engine builders to supply RB "for the good of the sport"?
It would seem so. Apparently, under the latest iteration of the Concord
Agreement the engine builder who supplies the fewest teams (i.e. Renault)
would be obliged to supply RB.
--
Sir Tim
That would make for a happy relationship considering their history.
On Saturday, 10 October 2020 at 12:37:19 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
On 10/10/20 11:45 AM, Bob Latham wrote:I should get you to spend a week with my sister who is a Professor of
In article <rlrthp$6rq$1...@dont-email.me>,
Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Although I am all for clean air and such I do not think CO2 or NOx
is any problem, no matter how many time the real climate deniers
rCo the ones that deny the 4.5 billion years of climate change that
is- try to push that message.
Yes, despite serious attempts by activists to airbrush climate
history out of existence.
Bob if you have invested zero time in investigating the climate
propaganda like yourself... you better don't make remarks as if you know
the slightest thing about it because you obviously don't.
For your information, the climate cryers including NASA are the ones
rewriting history and changing data to fit their propaganda.
Check it before you reply!
I like to separate or not include the rCYpollutionrCo caused by
generating electricity because that is up to the energy companies,
energy CAN be made pollution free and the way it is generated can
change in the future.
What about the pollution being created to mine the minerals for wind
farms and solar panels and what happens to these items after their
short life?
There is no difference between this an all other things so this is a
non-argument.
Wind power and solar are both intermittent, expensive and in the case
of wind kills flying animals at an alarming rate - nasty things.
Things can be solves and I don't know how bas is with those killing
anymals, do you?
Figures?
Nuclear the only way.
No it is not, and it is very expensive.
My only concern about saying that is that the
woman from XR interviewed by Andrew Neil (or should I say
slaughtered) last year has now left XR and is promoting nuclear. I'm
with her now? :-)
Bob.
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
climate science. I reckon you'd learn something. I doubt she would.
If we frame climate change in the context of whether we want a world
that humans can comfortably inhabit in the way that we are doing today
then things have to change, and we are undoubtedly making the climate
worse for ourselves.
4.5bn years of climate change is an irrelevance
when
modern humans have been around for such a miniscule fraction of that
time.
In the long run, the planet will survive anyway, up to the point at which
the sun destroys it. It's not about saving the planet - it will get along fine without humans to experience it.
You can deny all you want,
the science is such that any argument against
it is already lost.
You're now in such a minority that your opinions won't
matter anyway.
I should get you to spend a week with my sister who is a Professor
of climate science. I reckon you'd learn something. I doubt she
would.
If we frame climate change in the context of whether we want a
world that humans can comfortably inhabit in the way that we are
doing today then things have to change, and we are undoubtedly
making the climate worse for ourselves.
4.5bn years of climate change is an irrelevance when modern humans
have been around for such a miniscule fraction of that time.
In the long run, the planet will survive anyway, up to the point at
which the sun destroys it. It's not about saving the planet - it
will get along fine without humans to experience it.
You can deny all you want, the science is such that any argument
against it is already lost.
You're now in such a minority that your opinions won't matter
anyway.
On 2020-10-09 1:35 p.m., News wrote:
On 10/9/2020 2:07 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-10-08 8:20 a.m., a425couple wrote:
On 10/7/2020 4:11 AM, larkim wrote:
On Monday, 5 October 2020 at 18:40:34 UTC+1, a425couple wrote:OK.a I'm glad to see it appears you have thought this
On 10/5/2020 4:18 AM, larkim wrote:UK, Manchester / Liverpool area.
On Sunday, 4 October 2020 at 03:59:43 UTC+1, a425couple wrote:What country & city is this at?
On 10/2/2020 2:42 AM, larkim wrote:Yep, Peugeot e208. 180-200 mile range from a "full tank".
On Friday, 2 October 2020 at 10:17:53 UTC+1, alister wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 02 Oct 2020 01:21:19 -0700, larkim wrote:Is it total, 100% run on plug in electricity?
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/honda-exit-2021-red-bull/4885092/just as they were starting to come good as well
Didn't see that coming.
This is a good time to punt work.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but if Honda are on the >>>>>>>>> right track about
wanting to invest only in new techs then this could be the
start of the end of
ICE in F1 racing. Or at best the end of ICE F1 racing being >>>>>>>>> seen as the pinnacle
of motor sport.
It seems to me to be inevitable that ICE powered cars will
cease to be raced at
some point as anything other than historic curiosities, it's >>>>>>>>> just the timing of when
that will happen that is up for debate.
I've now got an EV. Much nicer than petrol!!
What is the electricity cost to drive 100 miles?
It does between 3.5-4.0 miles per kWh and a kWh costs me about
15p (soon to be 5p
with a new EV car specific tariff) so currently costing about 4p >>>>>>> per mile.
So about u4 per 100 miles.
Will save me c. u1000 fuel costs per year.
Charges at home overnight and gets me usually 3 days of commuting >>>>>>> per charge.
And the important bit - 8.1s 0-60 so pulling away from the
lights is fun!
through and it financially makes sense for you.
Best of luck.
I opted away from that, because I felt since I
am now driving so little, the battery would die
of old age long before a gas engine would wear out.
I'm caused to think of three things:a #1
Most of the UK's electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels,
aamainly natural gas (42% in 2016) and coal (9% in 2016). ...
The volume of electricity generated by coal and gas-fired power
stations changes each year, with some switching between the
two depending on fuel prices.
Electricity generation | Energy UK
#2, facebook picture
https://www.facebook.com/Eightlugmafia/photos/a.3024933517525731/3675083585844051/
"To all the green people with green cars...
This is an electric charging station, powered by
a diesel motor (fenced in generator - but possibly LNG). "
What's your proof that the generator is even connected to the
charging station, Lee?
And even if it is, so what?
Does that make electric vehicles a bad idea in general? No.
Makes them greenwash, like so many other 'sustainability' initiatives.
No.
It means that contingencies need to be covered, you amazing simpleton
On 10/12/20 9:57 AM, larkim wrote:There's no "view" to be open minded about.
On Saturday, 10 October 2020 at 12:37:19 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
On 10/10/20 11:45 AM, Bob Latham wrote:I should get you to spend a week with my sister who is a Professor of climate science. I reckon you'd learn something. I doubt she would.
In article <rlrthp$6rq$1...@dont-email.me>,
Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Although I am all for clean air and such I do not think CO2 or NOx
is any problem, no matter how many time the real climate deniers
rCo the ones that deny the 4.5 billion years of climate change that >>>> is- try to push that message.
Yes, despite serious attempts by activists to airbrush climate
history out of existence.
Bob if you have invested zero time in investigating the climate
propaganda like yourself... you better don't make remarks as if you know >> the slightest thing about it because you obviously don't.
For your information, the climate cryers including NASA are the ones
rewriting history and changing data to fit their propaganda.
Check it before you reply!
I like to separate or not include the rCYpollutionrCo caused by
generating electricity because that is up to the energy companies,
energy CAN be made pollution free and the way it is generated can
change in the future.
What about the pollution being created to mine the minerals for wind
farms and solar panels and what happens to these items after their
short life?
There is no difference between this an all other things so this is a
non-argument.
Wind power and solar are both intermittent, expensive and in the case >>> of wind kills flying animals at an alarming rate - nasty things.
Things can be solves and I don't know how bas is with those killing
anymals, do you?
Figures?
Nuclear the only way.
No it is not, and it is very expensive.
My only concern about saying that is that the
woman from XR interviewed by Andrew Neil (or should I say
slaughtered) last year has now left XR and is promoting nuclear. I'm
with her now? :-)
Bob.
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
If we frame climate change in the context of whether we want a worldLove your open minded view, starting with a fixed conclusion based on nothing :-)
that humans can comfortably inhabit in the way that we are doing today then things have to change, and we are undoubtedly making the climate worse for ourselves.
Those aren't my sister's words, they're mine.4.5bn years of climate change is an irrelevanceThat is also an very interesting viewpoint, pretty absurd but
interesting none the less.
whenAsk your sister what she means exactly.
modern humans have been around for such a miniscule fraction of that
time.
You are denyng the existence or importance of recent man-madeIn the long run, the planet will survive anyway, up to the point at which the sun destroys it. It's not about saving the planet - it will get along fine without humans to experience it.
You can deny all you want,Like what Sir, the 4.5 billion years of extreme climate change?
Or do you prefer to deny the varying CO2 concentration
Or maybe the ice age at a CO2 concentration of around 4000 ppm?
What exactly do you want me to deny?
I'm no keen greenie. Being alert to man-made climate change isn't athe science is such that any argument againstWhat do you mean, arguments against science?
it is already lost.
The climate BS has nothing to do with science.
You're now in such a minority that your opinions won'tActually it is not the minority but reality doesn't matter that is true.
matter anyway.
For your information, in science!!!! it is not about the number of supporters, you are confusing democracy with science.
In science one need only ONE single fact or observation to definitely disprove a faulty
theory.
But you are right in saying that is not how it works in the climate religion.
4.5bn years of climate change is an irrelevance when modern humans
have been around for such a miniscule fraction of that time.
Right so something repeats in a pretty regular cycle for thousands of
years and then suddenly the reason the cycle follows it's normal path
On Monday, 12 October 2020 at 09:49:56 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
On 10/12/20 9:57 AM, larkim wrote:
On Saturday, 10 October 2020 at 12:37:19 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:Love your open minded view, starting with a fixed conclusion based on
On 10/10/20 11:45 AM, Bob Latham wrote:I should get you to spend a week with my sister who is a Professor of
In article <rlrthp$6rq$1...@dont-email.me>,
Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Although I am all for clean air and such I do not think CO2 or NOx >>>>>> is any problem, no matter how many time the real climate deniers
rCo the ones that deny the 4.5 billion years of climate change that >>>>>> is- try to push that message.
Yes, despite serious attempts by activists to airbrush climate
history out of existence.
Bob if you have invested zero time in investigating the climate
propaganda like yourself... you better don't make remarks as if you know >>>> the slightest thing about it because you obviously don't.
For your information, the climate cryers including NASA are the ones
rewriting history and changing data to fit their propaganda.
Check it before you reply!
I like to separate or not include the rCYpollutionrCo caused by
generating electricity because that is up to the energy companies, >>>>>> energy CAN be made pollution free and the way it is generated can
change in the future.
What about the pollution being created to mine the minerals for wind >>>>> farms and solar panels and what happens to these items after their
short life?
There is no difference between this an all other things so this is a
non-argument.
Wind power and solar are both intermittent, expensive and in the case >>>>> of wind kills flying animals at an alarming rate - nasty things.
Things can be solves and I don't know how bas is with those killing
anymals, do you?
Figures?
Nuclear the only way.
No it is not, and it is very expensive.
My only concern about saying that is that the
woman from XR interviewed by Andrew Neil (or should I say
slaughtered) last year has now left XR and is promoting nuclear. I'm >>>>> with her now? :-)
Bob.
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
climate science. I reckon you'd learn something. I doubt she would.
If we frame climate change in the context of whether we want a world
that humans can comfortably inhabit in the way that we are doing today
then things have to change, and we are undoubtedly making the climate
worse for ourselves.
nothing :-)
There's no "view" to be open minded about.
The overwhelming conclusion from the science is that man-made
climate change is factually happening.
The challenge is in understanding
whether that is a problem or not.
The climate has continually changed over 4.5bn years.
Undoubtedly so. Natural variations in levels of all gases and climate temperature has happened, and will continue to happen with or
without human intervention. Indeed, at some point we may be able to,
and want to, control global climates so that they fit human existence
better.
But what happened in most of those years is an irrelevance to
you and me, and our children, our grandchildren etc today.
If you want to deny the evidence of man-made climate change then feel
free,
there's not going to be any rational debate with you that will
convince you otherwise. In a toss up between a Professor at a major
UK University and a poster on a F1 forum in terms of who I faith in for credibility about climate change, I think I'm on solid ground taking the Professor's experience, research and conclusions with more seriousness
than yours.
4.5bn years of climate change is an irrelevanceThat is also an very interesting viewpoint, pretty absurd but
interesting none the less.
whenAsk your sister what she means exactly.
modern humans have been around for such a miniscule fraction of that
time.
Those aren't my sister's words, they're mine.
I don't care about saving the planet. The planet is just a lump of rock
on which various life forms exist today, and on which in the future different lifeforms will exist.
My only concern is about the quality of life of my offspring and their descendents.
Modern humans have existed for about 200,000 years, our direct
ancestors maybe 6 million.
That's between 0.004% and 0.13% of the time that this planet has existed.
For the purposes of "the planet", that's insignificant, and by the time the planet
is consumed by the sun the chances are that we'll as a species be long
gone. So saving "the planet" doesn't matter from the planet's perspective.
Keeping the planet inhabitable and society economically viable for foreseeable
generations is what matters. If that's at risk, which the science clearly and overwhelmingly says it is to varying degrees, then why wouldn't
any sane person want to ask "Is there anything I can do to help mitigate this?"
In the long run, the planet will survive anyway, up to the point at which >>> the sun destroys it. It's not about saving the planet - it will get along >>> fine without humans to experience it.
You can deny all you want,
Like what Sir, the 4.5 billion years of extreme climate change?
Or do you prefer to deny the varying CO2 concentration
Or maybe the ice age at a CO2 concentration of around 4000 ppm?
What exactly do you want me to deny?
You are denyng the existence or importance of recent man-made
climate change; aren't you?
the science is such that any argument againstWhat do you mean, arguments against science?
it is already lost.
The climate BS has nothing to do with science.
You're now in such a minority that your opinions won'tActually it is not the minority but reality doesn't matter that is true.
matter anyway.
For your information, in science!!!! it is not about the number of
supporters, you are confusing democracy with science.
In science one need only ONE single fact or observation to definitely
disprove a faulty
theory.
But you are right in saying that is not how it works in the climate
religion.
I'm no keen greenie. Being alert to man-made climate change isn't a
religion for me; it's just a fact which I need to recognise is part of the world I live in.
I've got solar panels and an electric car not primarily because I've
got some mission to save the planet - it's mainly because it saves
me cash, and as a side bonus some of those actions will
result in lower levels of ancient CO2 being released into the
atmosphere, which I understand to be a "good thing".
You can deny the conclusions of the science
all you want and pretend to yourself that you're super intelligent and can see through
some massive conspiracy that is leading most of the worlds'
scientists (not all, I fully accept that) to draw the same or similar conclusions about man-made climate change. Free free; I think
what you're doing is risking harm to future generations, but what
do I know.
You just have an opinion based on the propaganda we get shoved
trough our throats 20 times a day, that is NOT science. It is just
how it works, repeating nonsense over and over again and it
becomes a "fact" except it isn't. There is absolutely nothing
scientific or reasonable about climate religion, it makes no sense
at all.
On 10/12/20 4:25 PM, larkim wrote:
On Monday, 12 October 2020 at 09:49:56 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
On 10/12/20 9:57 AM, larkim wrote:
On Saturday, 10 October 2020 at 12:37:19 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:Love your open minded view, starting with a fixed conclusion based on
On 10/10/20 11:45 AM, Bob Latham wrote:I should get you to spend a week with my sister who is a Professor of
In article <rlrthp$6rq$1...@dont-email.me>,
Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Although I am all for clean air and such I do not think CO2 or NOx >>>>>>> is any problem, no matter how many time the real climate deniers >>>>>>> rCo the ones that deny the 4.5 billion years of climate change that >>>>>>> is- try to push that message.
Yes, despite serious attempts by activists to airbrush climate
history out of existence.
Bob if you have invested zero time in investigating the climate
propaganda like yourself... you better don't make remarks as if you >>>>> know
the slightest thing about it because you obviously don't.
For your information, the climate cryers including NASA are the ones >>>>> rewriting history and changing data to fit their propaganda.
Check it before you reply!
I like to separate or not include the rCYpollutionrCo caused by
generating electricity because that is up to the energy companies, >>>>>>> energy CAN be made pollution free and the way it is generated can >>>>>>> change in the future.
What about the pollution being created to mine the minerals for wind >>>>>> farms and solar panels and what happens to these items after their >>>>>> short life?
There is no difference between this an all other things so this is a >>>>> non-argument.
Wind power and solar are both intermittent, expensive and in the case >>>>>> of wind kills flying animals at an alarming rate - nasty things.
Things can be solves and I don't know how bas is with those killing
anymals, do you?
Figures?
Nuclear the only way.
No it is not, and it is very expensive.
My only concern about saying that is that the
woman from XR interviewed by Andrew Neil (or should I say
slaughtered) last year has now left XR and is promoting nuclear. I'm >>>>>> with her now? :-)
Bob.
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
climate science. I reckon you'd learn something. I doubt she would.
If we frame climate change in the context of whether we want a world
that humans can comfortably inhabit in the way that we are doing today >>>> then things have to change, and we are undoubtedly making the climate
worse for ourselves.
nothing :-)
There's no "view" to be open minded about.
The overwhelming conclusion from the science is that man-made
climate change is factually happening.
No it is not.
You most likely just repeat the 97% lie but by all means, ask your
sister IF she know and if she can show you where this myth comes from.
The challenge is in understanding
whether that is a problem or not.
The climate has continually changed over 4.5bn years.
Undoubtedly so.-a Natural variations in levels of all gases and climate
temperature has happened, and will continue to happen with or
without human intervention.-a Indeed, at some point we may be able to,
and want to, control global climates so that they fit human existence
better.
But what happened in most of those years is an irrelevance to
you and me, and our children, our grandchildren etc today.
If you want to deny the evidence of man-made climate change then feel
free,
There is no such evidence at all. There is no evidence the tiny bit CO2
is a a major influence and you can be sure that the earth does not make
any distinction between CO2 coming from elephant farts or from a human
made exhaust pipe.
The 4000ppm CO2 wasn't a problem is the past so why should now 400ppm be?
there's not going to be any rational debate with you that will
convince you otherwise.-a In a toss up between a Professor at a major
UK University and a poster on a F1 forum in terms of who I faith in for
credibility about climate change, I think I'm on solid ground taking the
Professor's experience, research and conclusions with more seriousness
than yours.
Science doesn't work that way, now you are confusing science with religion.
4.5bn years of climate change is an irrelevanceThat is also an very interesting viewpoint, pretty absurd but
interesting none the less.
whenAsk your sister what she means exactly.
modern humans have been around for such a miniscule fraction of that
time.
Those aren't my sister's words, they're mine.
I don't care about saving the planet.-a The planet is just a lump of rock
on which various life forms exist today, and on which in the future
different
lifeforms will exist.
My only concern is about the quality of life of my offspring and their
descendents.
Modern humans have existed for about 200,000 years, our direct
ancestors maybe 6 million.
That's between 0.004% and 0.13% of the time that this planet has existed.
For the purposes of "the planet", that's insignificant, and by the
time the planet
is consumed by the sun the chances are that we'll as a species be long
gone.-a So saving "the planet" doesn't matter from the planet's
perspective.
Keeping the planet inhabitable and society economically viable for
foreseeable
generations is what matters.-a If that's at risk, which the science
clearly
and overwhelmingly says it is to varying degrees, then why wouldn't
any sane person want to ask "Is there anything I can do to help mitigate
this?"
Well lets say it about ONE HUNDRED years ago that man made the very
first exhaust pipe and "we" produced the very first CO2..
In the past 4.5 billion years the world didn't explode at CO2 levels
varying from 200ppm to over 4000ppm, what in the hell makes anyone think that the world will come to an end if "we" increase the CO2 level to 401 ppm?
In the long run, the planet will survive anyway, up to the point at
which
the sun destroys it. It's not about saving the planet - it will get
along
fine without humans to experience it.
You can deny all you want,
Like what Sir, the 4.5 billion years of extreme climate change?
Or do you prefer to deny the varying CO2 concentration
Or maybe the ice age at a CO2 concentration of around 4000 ppm?
What exactly do you want me to deny?
You are denyng the existence or importance of recent man-made
climate change; aren't you?
A much better way to say it is :
YOU are denying 4.5 billion years of climate change.
There is nothing new the last 50 or 100 years. It all happened thousands
or millions of times before.
the science is such that any argument againstWhat do you mean, arguments against science?
it is already lost.
The climate BS has nothing to do with science.
You're now in such a minority that your opinions won'tActually it is not the minority but reality doesn't matter that is true. >>> For your information, in science!!!! it is not about the number of
matter anyway.
supporters, you are confusing democracy with science.
In science one need only ONE single fact or observation to definitely
disprove a faulty
theory.
But you are right in saying that is not how it works in the climate
religion.
I'm no keen greenie.-a Being alert to man-made climate change isn't a
religion for me; it's just a fact which I need to recognise is part of
the
world I live in.
As always in religions, it is just a fact, according to the followers
that is.
I've got solar panels and an electric car not primarily because I've
got some mission to save the planet - it's mainly because it saves
me cash, and as a side bonus some of those actions will
result in lower levels of ancient CO2 being released into the
atmosphere, which I understand to be a "good thing".
You can deny the conclusions of the science
There is no such conclusion on science.
Show me the survey with the 97% scam and read it!
all you want and pretend to yourself that you're super intelligent and
can see through
some massive conspiracy that is leading most of the worlds'
scientists (not all, I fully accept that) to draw the same or similar
conclusions about man-made climate change.-a Free free; I think
what you're doing is risking harm to future generations, but what
do I know.
You just have an opinion based on the propaganda we get shoved trough
our throats 20 times a day, that is NOT science.
It is just how it works, repeating nonsense over and over again and it becomes a "fact" except it isn't.
There is absolutely nothing scientific or reasonable about climate
religion, it makes no sense at all.
You can throw in a few remarks about my intelligence - which is an
insult - or accuse me of being some conspiracy theorist - which also is intended as a insult -.
Let me return the favor, if you think that conspiracies do not and never have existed, you are a idiot!
In article <rm1umv$36o$1@dont-email.me>,
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
You just have an opinion based on the propaganda we get shoved
trough our throats 20 times a day, that is NOT science. It is just
how it works, repeating nonsense over and over again and it
becomes a "fact" except it isn't. There is absolutely nothing
scientific or reasonable about climate religion, it makes no sense
at all.
Wot he said. ^^
Plus, watch for attempts from the Davos lefties to conflate a shut
down for CC with covid19. The Great Reset, New World Order. they
think they can end capitalism ie. the mechanism that's given them
everything, how stupid can you get? Bite the hand that feeds you.
Climate Change is a useful trojan horse for the left and a religion
for people too clever to be religious.
In the long run, the planet will survive anyway, up to the point at
which
the sun destroys it. It's not about saving the planet - it will get
along
fine without humans to experience it.
You can deny all you want,
Like what Sir, the 4.5 billion years of extreme climate change?
Or do you prefer to deny the varying CO2 concentration
Or maybe the ice age at a CO2 concentration of around 4000 ppm?
What exactly do you want me to deny?
You are denyng the existence or importance of recent man-made
climate change; aren't you?
A much better way to say it is :
YOU are denying 4.5 billion years of climate change.
There is nothing new the last 50 or 100 years. It all happened thousands
or millions of times before.
On 2020-10-12 9:49 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rm1umv$36o$1@dont-email.me>,
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
You just have an opinion based on the propaganda we get shoved
trough our throats 20 times a day, that is NOT science. It is just
how it works, repeating nonsense over and over again and it
becomes a "fact" except it isn't. There is absolutely nothing
scientific or reasonable about climate religion, it makes no sense
at all.
Wot he said. ^^
Plus, watch for attempts from the Davos lefties to conflate a shut
down for CC with covid19. The Great Reset, New World Order. they
think they can end capitalism ie. the mechanism that's given them everything, how stupid can you get? Bite the hand that feeds you.
Climate Change is a useful trojan horse for the left and a religion
for people too clever to be religious.
You're an idiot.
You're an idiot.
In article <rm28g0$fh8$2@dont-email.me>,
Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
On 2020-10-12 9:49 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rm1umv$36o$1@dont-email.me>,
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
You just have an opinion based on the propaganda we get shoved
trough our throats 20 times a day, that is NOT science. It is just
how it works, repeating nonsense over and over again and it
becomes a "fact" except it isn't. There is absolutely nothing
scientific or reasonable about climate religion, it makes no sense
at all.
Wot he said. ^^
Plus, watch for attempts from the Davos lefties to conflate a shut
down for CC with covid19. The Great Reset, New World Order. they
think they can end capitalism ie. the mechanism that's given them
everything, how stupid can you get? Bite the hand that feeds you.
Climate Change is a useful trojan horse for the left and a religion
for people too clever to be religious.
You're an idiot.
Coming from you I'll take that as a compliment, thanks.
On 2020-10-12 9:49 a.m., Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rm1umv$36o$1@dont-email.me>,
-a-a-a Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
You just have an opinion based on the propaganda we get shoved
trough our throats 20 times a day, that is NOT science. It is just
how it works, repeating nonsense over and over again and it
becomes a "fact" except it isn't. There is absolutely nothing
scientific or reasonable about climate religion, it makes no sense
at all.
Wot he said. ^^
Plus, watch for attempts from the Davos lefties to conflate a shut
down for CC with covid19. The Great Reset, New World Order. they
think they can end capitalism ie. the mechanism that's given them
everything, how stupid can you get? Bite the hand that feeds you.
Climate Change is a useful trojan horse for the left and a religion
for people too clever to be religious.
You're an idiot.
On 2020-10-12 9:02 a.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/12/20 4:25 PM, larkim wrote:
On Monday, 12 October 2020 at 09:49:56 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
On 10/12/20 9:57 AM, larkim wrote:
On Saturday, 10 October 2020 at 12:37:19 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:Love your open minded view, starting with a fixed conclusion based on
On 10/10/20 11:45 AM, Bob Latham wrote:I should get you to spend a week with my sister who is a Professor of >>>>> climate science. I reckon you'd learn something. I doubt she would.
In article <rlrthp$6rq$1...@dont-email.me>,
Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Although I am all for clean air and such I do not think CO2 or NOx >>>>>>>> is any problem, no matter how many time the real climate deniers >>>>>>>> rCo the ones that deny the 4.5 billion years of climate change that >>>>>>>> is- try to push that message.
Yes, despite serious attempts by activists to airbrush climate
history out of existence.
Bob if you have invested zero time in investigating the climate
propaganda like yourself... you better don't make remarks as if
you know
the slightest thing about it because you obviously don't.
For your information, the climate cryers including NASA are the ones >>>>>> rewriting history and changing data to fit their propaganda.
Check it before you reply!
I like to separate or not include the rCYpollutionrCo caused by >>>>>>>> generating electricity because that is up to the energy companies, >>>>>>>> energy CAN be made pollution free and the way it is generated can >>>>>>>> change in the future.
What about the pollution being created to mine the minerals for wind >>>>>>> farms and solar panels and what happens to these items after their >>>>>>> short life?
There is no difference between this an all other things so this is a >>>>>> non-argument.
Wind power and solar are both intermittent, expensive and in the >>>>>>> case
of wind kills flying animals at an alarming rate - nasty things.
Things can be solves and I don't know how bas is with those killing >>>>>> anymals, do you?
Figures?
Nuclear the only way.
No it is not, and it is very expensive.
My only concern about saying that is that the
woman from XR interviewed by Andrew Neil (or should I say
slaughtered) last year has now left XR and is promoting nuclear. I'm >>>>>>> with her now? :-)
Bob.
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
If we frame climate change in the context of whether we want a world >>>>> that humans can comfortably inhabit in the way that we are doing today >>>>> then things have to change, and we are undoubtedly making the climate >>>>> worse for ourselves.
nothing :-)
There's no "view" to be open minded about.
The overwhelming conclusion from the science is that man-made
climate change is factually happening.
No it is not.
You most likely just repeat the 97% lie but by all means, ask your
sister IF she know and if she can show you where this myth comes from.
Actually, yes, it is.
The challenge is in understanding
whether that is a problem or not.
The climate has continually changed over 4.5bn years.
Undoubtedly so.-a Natural variations in levels of all gases and climate
temperature has happened, and will continue to happen with or
without human intervention.-a Indeed, at some point we may be able to,
and want to, control global climates so that they fit human existence
better.
But what happened in most of those years is an irrelevance to
you and me, and our children, our grandchildren etc today.
If you want to deny the evidence of man-made climate change then feel
free,
There is no such evidence at all. There is no evidence the tiny bit
CO2 is a a major influence and you can be sure that the earth does not
make any distinction between CO2 coming from elephant farts or from a
human made exhaust pipe.
The 4000ppm CO2 wasn't a problem is the past so why should now 400ppm be?
Extremely different conditions.
Temperature is just "rising like it has risen and fallen many times
across the millennia": it is rising, much MUCH faster.
there's not going to be any rational debate with you that will
convince you otherwise.-a In a toss up between a Professor at a major
UK University and a poster on a F1 forum in terms of who I faith in for
credibility about climate change, I think I'm on solid ground taking the >>> Professor's experience, research and conclusions with more seriousness
than yours.
Science doesn't work that way, now you are confusing science with
religion.
And since he's not doing science but opining upon who might be more credible, how does that matter?
4.5bn years of climate change is an irrelevanceThat is also an very interesting viewpoint, pretty absurd but
interesting none the less.
whenAsk your sister what she means exactly.
modern humans have been around for such a miniscule fraction of that >>>>> time.
Those aren't my sister's words, they're mine.
I don't care about saving the planet.-a The planet is just a lump of rock >>> on which various life forms exist today, and on which in the future
different
lifeforms will exist.
My only concern is about the quality of life of my offspring and their
descendents.
Modern humans have existed for about 200,000 years, our direct
ancestors maybe 6 million.
That's between 0.004% and 0.13% of the time that this planet has
existed.
For the purposes of "the planet", that's insignificant, and by the
time the planet
is consumed by the sun the chances are that we'll as a species be long
gone.-a So saving "the planet" doesn't matter from the planet's
perspective.
Keeping the planet inhabitable and society economically viable for
foreseeable
generations is what matters.-a If that's at risk, which the science
clearly
and overwhelmingly says it is to varying degrees, then why wouldn't
any sane person want to ask "Is there anything I can do to help mitigate >>> this?"
Well lets say it about ONE HUNDRED years ago that man made the very
first exhaust pipe and "we" produced the very first CO2..
In the past 4.5 billion years the world didn't explode at CO2 levels
varying from 200ppm to over 4000ppm, what in the hell makes anyone
think that the world will come to an end if "we" increase the CO2
level to 401 ppm?
The world doesn't have to "explode" to cause us severe problems, you twit.
In the long run, the planet will survive anyway, up to the point at >>>>> which
the sun destroys it. It's not about saving the planet - it will get >>>>> along
fine without humans to experience it.
You can deny all you want,
Like what Sir, the 4.5 billion years of extreme climate change?
Or do you prefer to deny the varying CO2 concentration
Or maybe the ice age at a CO2 concentration of around 4000 ppm?
What exactly do you want me to deny?
You are denyng the existence or importance of recent man-made
climate change; aren't you?
A much better way to say it is :
YOU are denying 4.5 billion years of climate change.
No, he is not.
There is nothing new the last 50 or 100 years. It all happened
thousands or millions of times before.
Show when the temperature has ever risen as FAST as it is rising now.
the science is such that any argument againstWhat do you mean, arguments against science?
it is already lost.
The climate BS has nothing to do with science.
You're now in such a minority that your opinions won'tActually it is not the minority but reality doesn't matter that is
matter anyway.
true.
For your information, in science!!!! it is not about the number of
supporters, you are confusing democracy with science.
In science one need only ONE single fact or observation to definitely
disprove a faulty
theory.
But you are right in saying that is not how it works in the climate
religion.
I'm no keen greenie.-a Being alert to man-made climate change isn't a
religion for me; it's just a fact which I need to recognise is part
of the
world I live in.
As always in religions, it is just a fact, according to the followers
that is.
I've got solar panels and an electric car not primarily because I've
got some mission to save the planet - it's mainly because it saves
me cash, and as a side bonus some of those actions will
result in lower levels of ancient CO2 being released into the
atmosphere, which I understand to be a "good thing".
You can deny the conclusions of the science
There is no such conclusion on science.
Show me the survey with the 97% scam and read it!
all you want and pretend to yourself that you're super intelligent
and can see through
some massive conspiracy that is leading most of the worlds'
scientists (not all, I fully accept that) to draw the same or similar
conclusions about man-made climate change.-a Free free; I think
what you're doing is risking harm to future generations, but what
do I know.
You just have an opinion based on the propaganda we get shoved trough
our throats 20 times a day, that is NOT science.
It is just how it works, repeating nonsense over and over again and it
becomes a "fact" except it isn't.
There is absolutely nothing scientific or reasonable about climate
religion, it makes no sense at all.
What makes the work of a vast majority peer-reviewed of scientists "propaganda" beyond your wish to claim it so?
You can throw in a few remarks about my intelligence - which is an
insult - or accuse me of being some conspiracy theorist - which also
is intended as a insult -.
Let me return the favor, if you think that conspiracies do not and
never have existed, you are a idiot!
Give an example of one such....
...just ONE.
In article <62b25b70-af1b-413d-a4fe-db06e46d9e5dn@googlegroups.com>,
larkim <matthew.larkin@gmail.com> wrote:
I should get you to spend a week with my sister who is a Professor
of climate science. I reckon you'd learn something. I doubt she
would.
Call to authority then insult - OK good start.
A standard left wing tactic.
If we frame climate change in the context of whether we want a
world that humans can comfortably inhabit in the way that we are
doing today then things have to change, and we are undoubtedly
making the climate worse for ourselves.
Tell me what the ideal average planet temperature should be?
Tell me in what ways that temperature is better than what we have now?
Same with CO2, what would be a better level and what benefits would
that level bring?
4.5bn years of climate change is an irrelevance when modern humans
have been around for such a miniscule fraction of that time.
Right so something repeats in a pretty regular cycle for thousands of
years and then suddenly the reason the cycle follows it's normal path
now is not due to the same cause it's because man has added a
piffling little extra CO2 into the atmosphere which makes a slight
attempt to restore normal CO2 levels. Most of the planets known
history, CO2 was far higher than today.
How do you know humans have any baring on this?
We've had most of the year shut down especially that great satan air
traffic. Yet have you seen the graphs for CO2? No change in the rate
of increase, funny that. So even if the cause was CO2, prove man is
the cause.
There is NO proof that CO2 is causing CC in the real world, if there
was, it would be documented everywhere, it isn't. It has been shown
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas in an enclosed and false environment,
that is all. It has also been shown by many scientists that the
frequencies of upward energy blocking that CO2 could provide are
already pretty much fully blocked by water vapour and some CO2.
Adding more CO2 will make little or no difference.
In article <rm1umv$36o$1@dont-email.me>,
Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
You just have an opinion based on the propaganda we get shoved
trough our throats 20 times a day, that is NOT science. It is just
how it works, repeating nonsense over and over again and it
becomes a "fact" except it isn't. There is absolutely nothing
scientific or reasonable about climate religion, it makes no sense
at all.
Wot he said. ^^
Plus, watch for attempts from the Davos lefties to conflate a shut
down for CC with covid19. The Great Reset, New World Order. they
think they can end capitalism ie. the mechanism that's given them
everything, how stupid can you get? Bite the hand that feeds you.
Climate Change is a useful trojan horse for the left and a religion
for people too clever to be religious.
Bob.
On 10/12/20 8:49 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-10-12 9:02 a.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/12/20 4:25 PM, larkim wrote:
On Monday, 12 October 2020 at 09:49:56 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
On 10/12/20 9:57 AM, larkim wrote:
On Saturday, 10 October 2020 at 12:37:19 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:Love your open minded view, starting with a fixed conclusion based on >>>>> nothing :-)
On 10/10/20 11:45 AM, Bob Latham wrote:I should get you to spend a week with my sister who is a Professor of >>>>>> climate science. I reckon you'd learn something. I doubt she would. >>>>>>
In article <rlrthp$6rq$1...@dont-email.me>,
Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Although I am all for clean air and such I do not think CO2 or NOx >>>>>>>>> is any problem, no matter how many time the real climate deniers >>>>>>>>> rCo the ones that deny the 4.5 billion years of climate change that >>>>>>>>> is- try to push that message.
Yes, despite serious attempts by activists to airbrush climate >>>>>>>> history out of existence.
Bob if you have invested zero time in investigating the climate
propaganda like yourself... you better don't make remarks as if >>>>>>> you know
the slightest thing about it because you obviously don't.
For your information, the climate cryers including NASA are the ones >>>>>>> rewriting history and changing data to fit their propaganda.
Check it before you reply!
I like to separate or not include the rCYpollutionrCo caused by >>>>>>>>> generating electricity because that is up to the energy companies, >>>>>>>>> energy CAN be made pollution free and the way it is generated can >>>>>>>>> change in the future.
What about the pollution being created to mine the minerals for >>>>>>>> wind
farms and solar panels and what happens to these items after their >>>>>>>> short life?
There is no difference between this an all other things so this is a >>>>>>> non-argument.
Things can be solves and I don't know how bas is with those killing >>>>>>> anymals, do you?
Wind power and solar are both intermittent, expensive and in the >>>>>>>> case
of wind kills flying animals at an alarming rate - nasty things. >>>>>>>
Figures?
Nuclear the only way.
No it is not, and it is very expensive.
My only concern about saying that is that the
woman from XR interviewed by Andrew Neil (or should I say
slaughtered) last year has now left XR and is promoting nuclear. >>>>>>>> I'm
with her now? :-)
Bob.
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
If we frame climate change in the context of whether we want a world >>>>>> that humans can comfortably inhabit in the way that we are doing
today
then things have to change, and we are undoubtedly making the climate >>>>>> worse for ourselves.
There's no "view" to be open minded about.
The overwhelming conclusion from the science is that man-made
climate change is factually happening.
No it is not.
You most likely just repeat the 97% lie but by all means, ask your
sister IF she know and if she can show you where this myth comes from.
Actually, yes, it is.
I wasn't talking to you but if that is your source, you are misinformed.
Show me the info AND READ IT YOURSELF!
The challenge is in understanding
whether that is a problem or not.
The climate has continually changed over 4.5bn years.
Undoubtedly so.-a Natural variations in levels of all gases and climate >>>> temperature has happened, and will continue to happen with or
without human intervention.-a Indeed, at some point we may be able to, >>>> and want to, control global climates so that they fit human existence
better.
But what happened in most of those years is an irrelevance to
you and me, and our children, our grandchildren etc today.
If you want to deny the evidence of man-made climate change then feel
free,
There is no such evidence at all. There is no evidence the tiny bit
CO2 is a a major influence and you can be sure that the earth does
not make any distinction between CO2 coming from elephant farts or
from a human made exhaust pipe.
The 4000ppm CO2 wasn't a problem is the past so why should now 400ppm
be?
Extremely different conditions.
Show me, and tell me how the climate church changes their story about
CO2 being the dominating/only reason for climate change then
Temperature is just "rising like it has risen and fallen many times
across the millennia": it is rising, much MUCH faster.
Oh really, OK show me the historical temperatures in a resolution of 10 years.
there's not going to be any rational debate with you that will
convince you otherwise.-a In a toss up between a Professor at a major
UK University and a poster on a F1 forum in terms of who I faith in for >>>> credibility about climate change, I think I'm on solid ground taking
the
Professor's experience, research and conclusions with more seriousness >>>> than yours.
Science doesn't work that way, now you are confusing science with
religion.
And since he's not doing science but opining upon who might be more
credible, how does that matter?
Think about that question, I guess you can figure it out for yourself,
it isn't particularly difficult.
4.5bn years of climate change is an irrelevanceThat is also an very interesting viewpoint, pretty absurd but
interesting none the less.
whenAsk your sister what she means exactly.
modern humans have been around for such a miniscule fraction of that >>>>>> time.
Those aren't my sister's words, they're mine.
I don't care about saving the planet.-a The planet is just a lump of
rock
on which various life forms exist today, and on which in the future
different
lifeforms will exist.
My only concern is about the quality of life of my offspring and their >>>> descendents.
Modern humans have existed for about 200,000 years, our direct
ancestors maybe 6 million.
That's between 0.004% and 0.13% of the time that this planet has
existed.
For the purposes of "the planet", that's insignificant, and by the
time the planet
is consumed by the sun the chances are that we'll as a species be long >>>> gone.-a So saving "the planet" doesn't matter from the planet's
perspective.
Keeping the planet inhabitable and society economically viable for
foreseeable
generations is what matters.-a If that's at risk, which the science
clearly
and overwhelmingly says it is to varying degrees, then why wouldn't
any sane person want to ask "Is there anything I can do to help
mitigate
this?"
Well lets say it about ONE HUNDRED years ago that man made the very
first exhaust pipe and "we" produced the very first CO2..
In the past 4.5 billion years the world didn't explode at CO2 levels
varying from 200ppm to over 4000ppm, what in the hell makes anyone
think that the world will come to an end if "we" increase the CO2
level to 401 ppm?
The world doesn't have to "explode" to cause us severe problems, you
twit.
So, what happened? Besides that we have got more plants and animals?
In the long run, the planet will survive anyway, up to the point
at which
the sun destroys it. It's not about saving the planet - it will
get along
fine without humans to experience it.
You can deny all you want,
Like what Sir, the 4.5 billion years of extreme climate change?
Or do you prefer to deny the varying CO2 concentration
Or maybe the ice age at a CO2 concentration of around 4000 ppm?
What exactly do you want me to deny?
You are denyng the existence or importance of recent man-made
climate change; aren't you?
A much better way to say it is :
YOU are denying 4.5 billion years of climate change.
No, he is not.
There is nothing new the last 50 or 100 years. It all happened
thousands or millions of times before.
Show when the temperature has ever risen as FAST as it is rising now.
I did ask you first so hand me that data and we will see.
the science is such that any argument againstWhat do you mean, arguments against science?
it is already lost.
The climate BS has nothing to do with science.
You're now in such a minority that your opinions won'tActually it is not the minority but reality doesn't matter that is
matter anyway.
true.
For your information, in science!!!! it is not about the number of
supporters, you are confusing democracy with science.
In science one need only ONE single fact or observation to definitely >>>>> disprove a faulty
theory.
But you are right in saying that is not how it works in the climate
religion.
I'm no keen greenie.-a Being alert to man-made climate change isn't a
religion for me; it's just a fact which I need to recognise is part
of the
world I live in.
As always in religions, it is just a fact, according to the followers
that is.
I've got solar panels and an electric car not primarily because I've
got some mission to save the planet - it's mainly because it saves
me cash, and as a side bonus some of those actions will
result in lower levels of ancient CO2 being released into the
atmosphere, which I understand to be a "good thing".
You can deny the conclusions of the science
There is no such conclusion on science.
Show me the survey with the 97% scam and read it!
all you want and pretend to yourself that you're super intelligent
and can see through
some massive conspiracy that is leading most of the worlds'
scientists (not all, I fully accept that) to draw the same or similar
conclusions about man-made climate change.-a Free free; I think
what you're doing is risking harm to future generations, but what
do I know.
You just have an opinion based on the propaganda we get shoved trough
our throats 20 times a day, that is NOT science.
It is just how it works, repeating nonsense over and over again and
it becomes a "fact" except it isn't.
There is absolutely nothing scientific or reasonable about climate
religion, it makes no sense at all.
What makes the work of a vast majority peer-reviewed of scientists
"propaganda" beyond your wish to claim it so?
Well we are not talking about the peer reviewed data here because nor he
nor you have ever seen such a thing.
Apart from that, peer reviewed does not mean it is true. Followed the
news recently no?
You can throw in a few remarks about my intelligence - which is an
insult - or accuse me of being some conspiracy theorist - which also
is intended as a insult -.
Let me return the favor, if you think that conspiracies do not and
never have existed, you are a idiot!
Give an example of one such....
...just ONE.
The Watergate Scandal. Happy now?
On 2020-10-12 4:03 p.m., Edmund wrote:
Why should he accept YOUR opinion versus that of an actual climate scientist?
On 13/10/2020 12:00 am, Bob Latham wrote:<shit snipped>
All veritably measured and attributed over the period in question. And modeled which clearly
demonstrates cause and effect. Not by religious zealots, but by scientists whose aim is the
accurate truth, whatever that may turn out to be.
Next you'll be denying that CFCs affect the ozone-layer !
On 2020-10-12 4:03 p.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/12/20 8:49 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-10-12 9:02 a.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/12/20 4:25 PM, larkim wrote:
On Monday, 12 October 2020 at 09:49:56 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
On 10/12/20 9:57 AM, larkim wrote:
On Saturday, 10 October 2020 at 12:37:19 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:Love your open minded view, starting with a fixed conclusion based on >>>>>> nothing :-)
On 10/10/20 11:45 AM, Bob Latham wrote:I should get you to spend a week with my sister who is a
In article <rlrthp$6rq$1...@dont-email.me>,
Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Although I am all for clean air and such I do not think CO2 or >>>>>>>>>> NOx
is any problem, no matter how many time the real climate deniers >>>>>>>>>> rCo the ones that deny the 4.5 billion years of climate change that >>>>>>>>>> is- try to push that message.
Yes, despite serious attempts by activists to airbrush climate >>>>>>>>> history out of existence.
Bob if you have invested zero time in investigating the climate >>>>>>>> propaganda like yourself... you better don't make remarks as if >>>>>>>> you know
the slightest thing about it because you obviously don't.
For your information, the climate cryers including NASA are the >>>>>>>> ones
rewriting history and changing data to fit their propaganda.
Check it before you reply!
I like to separate or not include the rCYpollutionrCo caused by >>>>>>>>>> generating electricity because that is up to the energy
companies,
energy CAN be made pollution free and the way it is generated can >>>>>>>>>> change in the future.
What about the pollution being created to mine the minerals for >>>>>>>>> wind
farms and solar panels and what happens to these items after their >>>>>>>>> short life?
There is no difference between this an all other things so this >>>>>>>> is a
non-argument.
Things can be solves and I don't know how bas is with those killing >>>>>>>> anymals, do you?
Wind power and solar are both intermittent, expensive and in >>>>>>>>> the case
of wind kills flying animals at an alarming rate - nasty things. >>>>>>>>
Figures?
Nuclear the only way.
No it is not, and it is very expensive.
My only concern about saying that is that the
woman from XR interviewed by Andrew Neil (or should I say
slaughtered) last year has now left XR and is promoting
nuclear. I'm
with her now? :-)
Bob.
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
Professor of
climate science. I reckon you'd learn something. I doubt she would. >>>>>>>
If we frame climate change in the context of whether we want a world >>>>>>> that humans can comfortably inhabit in the way that we are doing >>>>>>> today
then things have to change, and we are undoubtedly making the
climate
worse for ourselves.
There's no "view" to be open minded about.
The overwhelming conclusion from the science is that man-made
climate change is factually happening.
No it is not.
You most likely just repeat the 97% lie but by all means, ask your
sister IF she know and if she can show you where this myth comes from.
Actually, yes, it is.
I wasn't talking to you but if that is your source, you are misinformed.
Show me the info AND READ IT YOURSELF!
The challenge is in understanding
whether that is a problem or not.
The climate has continually changed over 4.5bn years.
Undoubtedly so.-a Natural variations in levels of all gases and climate >>>>> temperature has happened, and will continue to happen with or
without human intervention.-a Indeed, at some point we may be able to, >>>>> and want to, control global climates so that they fit human existence >>>>> better.
But what happened in most of those years is an irrelevance to
you and me, and our children, our grandchildren etc today.
If you want to deny the evidence of man-made climate change then feel >>>>> free,
There is no such evidence at all. There is no evidence the tiny bit
CO2 is a a major influence and you can be sure that the earth does
not make any distinction between CO2 coming from elephant farts or
from a human made exhaust pipe.
The 4000ppm CO2 wasn't a problem is the past so why should now
400ppm be?
Extremely different conditions.
Show me, and tell me how the climate church changes their story about
CO2 being the dominating/only reason for climate change then
Show me where anyone has ever said that CO1 is the "dominating/only
reason" first.
Temperature is just "rising like it has risen and fallen many times
across the millennia": it is rising, much MUCH faster.
Oh really, OK show me the historical temperatures in a resolution of
10 years.
It hasn't just been happening for 10 years, sunshine...
<https://xkcd.com/1732/>
there's not going to be any rational debate with you that will
convince you otherwise.-a In a toss up between a Professor at a major >>>>> UK University and a poster on a F1 forum in terms of who I faith in >>>>> for
credibility about climate change, I think I'm on solid ground
taking the
Professor's experience, research and conclusions with more seriousness >>>>> than yours.
Science doesn't work that way, now you are confusing science with
religion.
And since he's not doing science but opining upon who might be more
credible, how does that matter?
Think about that question, I guess you can figure it out for yourself,
it isn't particularly difficult.
Certainly you can't answer my question, so I guess it was too difficult
for you.
Why should he accept YOUR opinion versus that of an actual climate scientist?
4.5bn years of climate change is an irrelevanceThat is also an very interesting viewpoint, pretty absurd but
interesting none the less.
whenAsk your sister what she means exactly.
modern humans have been around for such a miniscule fraction of that >>>>>>> time.
Those aren't my sister's words, they're mine.
I don't care about saving the planet.-a The planet is just a lump of >>>>> rock
on which various life forms exist today, and on which in the future >>>>> different
lifeforms will exist.
My only concern is about the quality of life of my offspring and their >>>>> descendents.
Modern humans have existed for about 200,000 years, our direct
ancestors maybe 6 million.
That's between 0.004% and 0.13% of the time that this planet has
existed.
For the purposes of "the planet", that's insignificant, and by the
time the planet
is consumed by the sun the chances are that we'll as a species be long >>>>> gone.-a So saving "the planet" doesn't matter from the planet's
perspective.
Keeping the planet inhabitable and society economically viable for
foreseeable
generations is what matters.-a If that's at risk, which the science >>>>> clearly
and overwhelmingly says it is to varying degrees, then why wouldn't
any sane person want to ask "Is there anything I can do to help
mitigate
this?"
Well lets say it about ONE HUNDRED years ago that man made the very
first exhaust pipe and "we" produced the very first CO2..
In the past 4.5 billion years the world didn't explode at CO2 levels
varying from 200ppm to over 4000ppm, what in the hell makes anyone
think that the world will come to an end if "we" increase the CO2
level to 401 ppm?
The world doesn't have to "explode" to cause us severe problems, you
twit.
So, what happened? Besides that we have got more plants and animals?
Where are a lot of our large cities located?
Do you think that they can all easily accomodate rising oceans?
In the long run, the planet will survive anyway, up to the point >>>>>>> at which
the sun destroys it. It's not about saving the planet - it will >>>>>>> get along
fine without humans to experience it.
You can deny all you want,
Like what Sir, the 4.5 billion years of extreme climate change?
Or do you prefer to deny the varying CO2 concentration
Or maybe the ice age at a CO2 concentration of around 4000 ppm?
What exactly do you want me to deny?
You are denyng the existence or importance of recent man-made
climate change; aren't you?
A much better way to say it is :
YOU are denying 4.5 billion years of climate change.
No, he is not.
There is nothing new the last 50 or 100 years. It all happened
thousands or millions of times before.
Show when the temperature has ever risen as FAST as it is rising now.
I did ask you first so hand me that data and we will see.
So I have to produce every single instance of warming in order to
disprove your statement versus you producing a single instance to
disprove mine...
the science is such that any argument againstWhat do you mean, arguments against science?
it is already lost.
The climate BS has nothing to do with science.
You're now in such a minority that your opinions won'tActually it is not the minority but reality doesn't matter that is >>>>>> true.
matter anyway.
For your information, in science!!!! it is not about the number of >>>>>> supporters, you are confusing democracy with science.
In science one need only ONE single fact or observation to definitely >>>>>> disprove a faulty
theory.
But you are right in saying that is not how it works in the climate >>>>>> religion.
I'm no keen greenie.-a Being alert to man-made climate change isn't a >>>>> religion for me; it's just a fact which I need to recognise is part >>>>> of the
world I live in.
As always in religions, it is just a fact, according to the
followers that is.
I've got solar panels and an electric car not primarily because I've >>>>> got some mission to save the planet - it's mainly because it saves
me cash, and as a side bonus some of those actions will
result in lower levels of ancient CO2 being released into the
atmosphere, which I understand to be a "good thing".
You can deny the conclusions of the science
There is no such conclusion on science.
Show me the survey with the 97% scam and read it!
all you want and pretend to yourself that you're super intelligent
and can see through
some massive conspiracy that is leading most of the worlds'
scientists (not all, I fully accept that) to draw the same or similar >>>>> conclusions about man-made climate change.-a Free free; I think
what you're doing is risking harm to future generations, but what
do I know.
You just have an opinion based on the propaganda we get shoved
trough our throats 20 times a day, that is NOT science.
It is just how it works, repeating nonsense over and over again and
it becomes a "fact" except it isn't.
There is absolutely nothing scientific or reasonable about climate
religion, it makes no sense at all.
What makes the work of a vast majority peer-reviewed of scientists
"propaganda" beyond your wish to claim it so?
Well we are not talking about the peer reviewed data here because nor
he nor you have ever seen such a thing.
Apart from that, peer reviewed does not mean it is true. Followed the
news recently no?
You can throw in a few remarks about my intelligence - which is an
insult - or accuse me of being some conspiracy theorist - which also
is intended as a insult -.
Let me return the favor, if you think that conspiracies do not and
never have existed, you are a idiot!
Give an example of one such....
...just ONE.
The Watergate Scandal. Happy now?
You equate the relatively few people who were in on that conspiracy to
the tens of thousands who would all have to be in on faking climate change?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLLOLOLOLOL
On 10/13/20 1:31 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-10-12 4:03 p.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/12/20 8:49 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-10-12 9:02 a.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/12/20 4:25 PM, larkim wrote:Actually, yes, it is.
On Monday, 12 October 2020 at 09:49:56 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
On 10/12/20 9:57 AM, larkim wrote:
On Saturday, 10 October 2020 at 12:37:19 UTC+1, Edmund wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 10/10/20 11:45 AM, Bob Latham wrote:Love your open minded view, starting with a fixed conclusion
I should get you to spend a week with my sister who is aIn article <rlrthp$6rq$1...@dont-email.me>,
Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Although I am all for clean air and such I do not think CO2 >>>>>>>>>>> or NOx
is any problem, no matter how many time the real climate deniers >>>>>>>>>>> rCo the ones that deny the 4.5 billion years of climate change >>>>>>>>>>> that
is- try to push that message.
Yes, despite serious attempts by activists to airbrush climate >>>>>>>>>> history out of existence.
Bob if you have invested zero time in investigating the climate >>>>>>>>> propaganda like yourself... you better don't make remarks as if >>>>>>>>> you know
the slightest thing about it because you obviously don't.
For your information, the climate cryers including NASA are the >>>>>>>>> ones
rewriting history and changing data to fit their propaganda. >>>>>>>>> Check it before you reply!
I like to separate or not include the rCYpollutionrCo caused by >>>>>>>>>>> generating electricity because that is up to the energy >>>>>>>>>>> companies,
energy CAN be made pollution free and the way it is generated >>>>>>>>>>> can
change in the future.
What about the pollution being created to mine the minerals >>>>>>>>>> for wind
farms and solar panels and what happens to these items after >>>>>>>>>> their
short life?
There is no difference between this an all other things so this >>>>>>>>> is a
non-argument.
Things can be solves and I don't know how bas is with those >>>>>>>>> killing
Wind power and solar are both intermittent, expensive and in >>>>>>>>>> the case
of wind kills flying animals at an alarming rate - nasty things. >>>>>>>>>
anymals, do you?
Figures?
Nuclear the only way.
No it is not, and it is very expensive.
My only concern about saying that is that the
woman from XR interviewed by Andrew Neil (or should I say
slaughtered) last year has now left XR and is promoting
nuclear. I'm
with her now? :-)
Bob.
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
Professor of
climate science. I reckon you'd learn something. I doubt she would. >>>>>>>>
If we frame climate change in the context of whether we want a >>>>>>>> world
that humans can comfortably inhabit in the way that we are doing >>>>>>>> today
then things have to change, and we are undoubtedly making the >>>>>>>> climate
worse for ourselves.
based on
nothing :-)
There's no "view" to be open minded about.
The overwhelming conclusion from the science is that man-made
climate change is factually happening.
No it is not.
You most likely just repeat the 97% lie but by all means, ask your
sister IF she know and if she can show you where this myth comes from. >>>>
I wasn't talking to you but if that is your source, you are misinformed. >>> Show me the info AND READ IT YOURSELF!
And no reaction!
The challenge is in understanding
whether that is a problem or not.
The climate has continually changed over 4.5bn years.
Undoubtedly so.-a Natural variations in levels of all gases and
climate
temperature has happened, and will continue to happen with or
without human intervention.-a Indeed, at some point we may be able to, >>>>>> and want to, control global climates so that they fit human existence >>>>>> better.
But what happened in most of those years is an irrelevance to
you and me, and our children, our grandchildren etc today.
If you want to deny the evidence of man-made climate change then feel >>>>>> free,
There is no such evidence at all. There is no evidence the tiny bit >>>>> CO2 is a a major influence and you can be sure that the earth does
not make any distinction between CO2 coming from elephant farts or
from a human made exhaust pipe.
The 4000ppm CO2 wasn't a problem is the past so why should now
400ppm be?
Extremely different conditions.
Show me, and tell me how the climate church changes their story about
CO2 being the dominating/only reason for climate change then
Show me where anyone has ever said that CO1 is the "dominating/only
reason" first.
So you don't answer anything ... I see.
Temperature is just "rising like it has risen and fallen many times
across the millennia": it is rising, much MUCH faster.
Oh really, OK show me the historical temperatures in a resolution of
10 years.
It hasn't just been happening for 10 years, sunshine...
If you cannot show me the historical data from the last 4.5 billion
years in a 10 year resolution, you cannot even know that.
You can believe your church however.
<https://xkcd.com/1732/>
there's not going to be any rational debate with you that will
convince you otherwise.-a In a toss up between a Professor at a major >>>>>> UK University and a poster on a F1 forum in terms of who I faith
in for
credibility about climate change, I think I'm on solid ground
taking the
Professor's experience, research and conclusions with more
seriousness
than yours.
Science doesn't work that way, now you are confusing science with
religion.
And since he's not doing science but opining upon who might be more
credible, how does that matter?
Think about that question, I guess you can figure it out for
yourself, it isn't particularly difficult.
Certainly you can't answer my question, so I guess it was too
difficult for you.
Why should he accept YOUR opinion versus that of an actual climate
scientist?
Because science is NOT a matter of who to believe!-a Religions are
4.5bn years of climate change is an irrelevanceThat is also an very interesting viewpoint, pretty absurd but
interesting none the less.
whenAsk your sister what she means exactly.
modern humans have been around for such a miniscule fraction of >>>>>>>> that
time.
Those aren't my sister's words, they're mine.
I don't care about saving the planet.-a The planet is just a lump >>>>>> of rock
on which various life forms exist today, and on which in the
future different
lifeforms will exist.
My only concern is about the quality of life of my offspring and
their
descendents.
Modern humans have existed for about 200,000 years, our direct
ancestors maybe 6 million.
That's between 0.004% and 0.13% of the time that this planet has
existed.
For the purposes of "the planet", that's insignificant, and by the >>>>>> time the planet
is consumed by the sun the chances are that we'll as a species be >>>>>> long
gone.-a So saving "the planet" doesn't matter from the planet's
perspective.
Keeping the planet inhabitable and society economically viable for >>>>>> foreseeable
generations is what matters.-a If that's at risk, which the science >>>>>> clearly
and overwhelmingly says it is to varying degrees, then why wouldn't >>>>>> any sane person want to ask "Is there anything I can do to help
mitigate
this?"
Well lets say it about ONE HUNDRED years ago that man made the very >>>>> first exhaust pipe and "we" produced the very first CO2..
In the past 4.5 billion years the world didn't explode at CO2
levels varying from 200ppm to over 4000ppm, what in the hell makes
anyone think that the world will come to an end if "we" increase
the CO2 level to 401 ppm?
The world doesn't have to "explode" to cause us severe problems, you
twit.
So, what happened? Besides that we have got more plants and animals?
Where are a lot of our large cities located?
Answer the question.
Do you think that they can all easily accomodate rising oceans?
Show me the rising oceans from the last 4.5 billion years.
In the long run, the planet will survive anyway, up to the point >>>>>>>> at which
the sun destroys it. It's not about saving the planet - it will >>>>>>>> get along
fine without humans to experience it.
You can deny all you want,
Like what Sir, the 4.5 billion years of extreme climate change?
Or do you prefer to deny the varying CO2 concentration
Or maybe the ice age at a CO2 concentration of around 4000 ppm?
What exactly do you want me to deny?
You are denyng the existence or importance of recent man-made
climate change; aren't you?
A much better way to say it is :
YOU are denying 4.5 billion years of climate change.
No, he is not.
There is nothing new the last 50 or 100 years. It all happened
thousands or millions of times before.
Show when the temperature has ever risen as FAST as it is rising now.
I did ask you first so hand me that data and we will see.
So I have to produce every single instance of warming in order to
disprove your statement versus you producing a single instance to
disprove mine...
You don't understand. Let me see if I can dumb it down for you.
SHOW me the data from the last 4.5 billion years so we can check your statement about that "Extremely different conditions" that you did not answer either.
the science is such that any argument againstWhat do you mean, arguments against science?
it is already lost.
The climate BS has nothing to do with science.
You're now in such a minority that your opinions won'tActually it is not the minority but reality doesn't matter that >>>>>>> is true.
matter anyway.
For your information, in science!!!! it is not about the number of >>>>>>> supporters, you are confusing democracy with science.
In science one need only ONE single fact or observation to
definitely
disprove a faulty
theory.
But you are right in saying that is not how it works in the climate >>>>>>> religion.
I'm no keen greenie.-a Being alert to man-made climate change isn't a >>>>>> religion for me; it's just a fact which I need to recognise is
part of the
world I live in.
As always in religions, it is just a fact, according to the
followers that is.
I've got solar panels and an electric car not primarily because I've >>>>>> got some mission to save the planet - it's mainly because it saves >>>>>> me cash, and as a side bonus some of those actions will
result in lower levels of ancient CO2 being released into the
atmosphere, which I understand to be a "good thing".
You can deny the conclusions of the science
There is no such conclusion on science.
Show me the survey with the 97% scam and read it!
all you want and pretend to yourself that you're super intelligent >>>>>> and can see through
some massive conspiracy that is leading most of the worlds'
scientists (not all, I fully accept that) to draw the same or similar >>>>>> conclusions about man-made climate change.-a Free free; I think
what you're doing is risking harm to future generations, but what
do I know.
You just have an opinion based on the propaganda we get shoved
trough our throats 20 times a day, that is NOT science.
It is just how it works, repeating nonsense over and over again and >>>>> it becomes a "fact" except it isn't.
There is absolutely nothing scientific or reasonable about climate
religion, it makes no sense at all.
What makes the work of a vast majority peer-reviewed of scientists
"propaganda" beyond your wish to claim it so?
Well we are not talking about the peer reviewed data here because nor
he nor you have ever seen such a thing.
Apart from that, peer reviewed does not mean it is true. Followed the
news recently no?
No response?
You can throw in a few remarks about my intelligence - which is an
insult - or accuse me of being some conspiracy theorist - which
also is intended as a insult -.
Let me return the favor, if you think that conspiracies do not and
never have existed, you are a idiot!
Give an example of one such....
...just ONE.
The Watergate Scandal. Happy now?
You equate the relatively few people who were in on that conspiracy to
the tens of thousands who would all have to be in on faking climate
change?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLLOLOLOLOL
You really are an idiot, you asked one, you got one and now again you
want something different, the climate cryers are DENYING 4.5 billion
years of climate change and claiming the climate change of the last 50
or 100 years is man made.
Sane people do not deny or change the history. The climate cryers are accusing normal people from everything that they are doing themselves.
On 10/13/20 1:31 AM, Alan Baker wrote:L
You really are an idiot, you asked one, you got one and now again you
want something different, the climate cryers are DENYING 4.5 billion
years of climate change and claiming the climate change of the last 50
or 100 years is man made.
Sane people do not deny or change the history. The climate cryers are accusing normal people from everything that they are doing themselves.
On 2020-10-13 1:12 a.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/13/20 1:31 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-10-12 4:03 p.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/12/20 8:49 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-10-12 9:02 a.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/12/20 4:25 PM, larkim wrote:
On Monday, 12 October 2020 at 09:49:56 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
On 10/12/20 9:57 AM, larkim wrote:
On Saturday, 10 October 2020 at 12:37:19 UTC+1, Edmund wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 10/10/20 11:45 AM, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rlrthp$6rq$1...@dont-email.me>,
Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
What makes the work of a vast majority peer-reviewed of scientists
"propaganda" beyond your wish to claim it so?
Well we are not talking about the peer reviewed data here because
nor he nor you have ever seen such a thing.
Apart from that, peer reviewed does not mean it is true. Followed
the news recently no?
No response?
You can throw in a few remarks about my intelligence - which is an >>>>>> insult - or accuse me of being some conspiracy theorist - which
also is intended as a insult -.
Let me return the favor, if you think that conspiracies do not and >>>>>> never have existed, you are a idiot!
Give an example of one such....
...just ONE.
The Watergate Scandal. Happy now?
You equate the relatively few people who were in on that conspiracy
to the tens of thousands who would all have to be in on faking
climate change?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLLOLOLOLOL
You really are an idiot, you asked one, you got one and now again you
want something different, the climate cryers are DENYING 4.5 billion
years of climate change and claiming the climate change of the last 50
or 100 years is man made.
Sane people do not deny or change the history. The climate cryers are
accusing normal people from everything that they are doing themselves.
I asked for one that was implicitly of the same SCALE, doofus.
The fact is that there is a rate of change right now that is utterly unprecedented.
On 10/13/20 11:17 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-10-13 1:12 a.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/13/20 1:31 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-10-12 4:03 p.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/12/20 8:49 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-10-12 9:02 a.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/12/20 4:25 PM, larkim wrote:
On Monday, 12 October 2020 at 09:49:56 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
On 10/12/20 9:57 AM, larkim wrote:
On Saturday, 10 October 2020 at 12:37:19 UTC+1, Edmund wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/10/20 11:45 AM, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rlrthp$6rq$1...@dont-email.me>,
Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
What makes the work of a vast majority peer-reviewed of scientists >>>>>> "propaganda" beyond your wish to claim it so?
Well we are not talking about the peer reviewed data here because
nor he nor you have ever seen such a thing.
Apart from that, peer reviewed does not mean it is true. Followed
the news recently no?
No response?
You can throw in a few remarks about my intelligence - which is >>>>>>> an insult - or accuse me of being some conspiracy theorist -
which also is intended as a insult -.
Let me return the favor, if you think that conspiracies do not
and never have existed, you are a idiot!
Give an example of one such....
...just ONE.
The Watergate Scandal. Happy now?
You equate the relatively few people who were in on that conspiracy
to the tens of thousands who would all have to be in on faking
climate change?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLLOLOLOLOL
You really are an idiot, you asked one, you got one and now again you
want something different, the climate cryers are DENYING 4.5 billion
years of climate change and claiming the climate change of the last
50 or 100 years is man made.
Sane people do not deny or change the history. The climate cryers are
accusing normal people from everything that they are doing themselves.
I asked for one that was implicitly of the same SCALE, doofus.
The fact is that there is a rate of change right now that is utterly
unprecedented.
OK show me the proof of that claim and deny all other questions, oh wait
you already did deny all of them.
Edmund
On 10/13/20 11:17 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-10-13 1:12 a.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/13/20 1:31 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-10-12 4:03 p.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/12/20 8:49 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-10-12 9:02 a.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/12/20 4:25 PM, larkim wrote:
On Monday, 12 October 2020 at 09:49:56 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
On 10/12/20 9:57 AM, larkim wrote:
On Saturday, 10 October 2020 at 12:37:19 UTC+1, Edmund wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/10/20 11:45 AM, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rlrthp$6rq$1...@dont-email.me>,
Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
What makes the work of a vast majority peer-reviewed of scientists >>>>>> "propaganda" beyond your wish to claim it so?
Well we are not talking about the peer reviewed data here because
nor he nor you have ever seen such a thing.
Apart from that, peer reviewed does not mean it is true. Followed
the news recently no?
No response?
You can throw in a few remarks about my intelligence - which is >>>>>>> an insult - or accuse me of being some conspiracy theorist -
which also is intended as a insult -.
Let me return the favor, if you think that conspiracies do not
and never have existed, you are a idiot!
Give an example of one such....
...just ONE.
The Watergate Scandal. Happy now?
You equate the relatively few people who were in on that conspiracy
to the tens of thousands who would all have to be in on faking
climate change?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLLOLOLOLOL
You really are an idiot, you asked one, you got one and now again you
want something different, the climate cryers are DENYING 4.5 billion
years of climate change and claiming the climate change of the last
50 or 100 years is man made.
Sane people do not deny or change the history. The climate cryers are
accusing normal people from everything that they are doing themselves.
I asked for one that was implicitly of the same SCALE, doofus.
The fact is that there is a rate of change right now that is utterly
unprecedented.
OK show me the proof of that claim and deny all other questions, oh wait
you already did deny all of them.
It would be great if we could keep this group mostly on-topic.
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville
This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.
It would be great if we could keep this group mostly on-topic.
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville
This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.
On 10/12/20 4:25 PM, larkim wrote:Sadly it's just not worth a response beyond this.
On Monday, 12 October 2020 at 09:49:56 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
On 10/12/20 9:57 AM, larkim wrote:
On Saturday, 10 October 2020 at 12:37:19 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:Love your open minded view, starting with a fixed conclusion based on
On 10/10/20 11:45 AM, Bob Latham wrote:I should get you to spend a week with my sister who is a Professor of >>> climate science. I reckon you'd learn something. I doubt she would.
In article <rlrthp$6rq$1...@dont-email.me>,
Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Although I am all for clean air and such I do not think CO2 or NOx >>>>>> is any problem, no matter how many time the real climate deniers >>>>>> rCo the ones that deny the 4.5 billion years of climate change that >>>>>> is- try to push that message.
Yes, despite serious attempts by activists to airbrush climate
history out of existence.
Bob if you have invested zero time in investigating the climate
propaganda like yourself... you better don't make remarks as if you know
the slightest thing about it because you obviously don't.
For your information, the climate cryers including NASA are the ones >>>> rewriting history and changing data to fit their propaganda.
Check it before you reply!
I like to separate or not include the rCYpollutionrCo caused by >>>>>> generating electricity because that is up to the energy companies, >>>>>> energy CAN be made pollution free and the way it is generated can >>>>>> change in the future.
What about the pollution being created to mine the minerals for wind >>>>> farms and solar panels and what happens to these items after their >>>>> short life?
There is no difference between this an all other things so this is a >>>> non-argument.
Wind power and solar are both intermittent, expensive and in the case >>>>> of wind kills flying animals at an alarming rate - nasty things.
Things can be solves and I don't know how bas is with those killing >>>> anymals, do you?
Figures?
Nuclear the only way.
No it is not, and it is very expensive.
My only concern about saying that is that the
woman from XR interviewed by Andrew Neil (or should I say
slaughtered) last year has now left XR and is promoting nuclear. I'm >>>>> with her now? :-)
Bob.
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
If we frame climate change in the context of whether we want a world
that humans can comfortably inhabit in the way that we are doing today >>> then things have to change, and we are undoubtedly making the climate >>> worse for ourselves.
nothing :-)
There's no "view" to be open minded about.
The overwhelming conclusion from the science is that man-madeNo it is not.
climate change is factually happening.
You most likely just repeat the 97% lie but by all means, ask your
sister IF she know and if she can show you where this myth comes from.
The challenge is in understanding
whether that is a problem or not.
The climate has continually changed over 4.5bn years.
Undoubtedly so. Natural variations in levels of all gases and climate temperature has happened, and will continue to happen with or
without human intervention. Indeed, at some point we may be able to,
and want to, control global climates so that they fit human existence better.
But what happened in most of those years is an irrelevance to
you and me, and our children, our grandchildren etc today.
If you want to deny the evidence of man-made climate change then feel free,There is no such evidence at all. There is no evidence the tiny bit CO2
is a a major influence and you can be sure that the earth does not make
any distinction between CO2 coming from elephant farts or from a human
made exhaust pipe.
The 4000ppm CO2 wasn't a problem is the past so why should now 400ppm be?
there's not going to be any rational debate with you that willScience doesn't work that way, now you are confusing science with religion.
convince you otherwise. In a toss up between a Professor at a major
UK University and a poster on a F1 forum in terms of who I faith in for credibility about climate change, I think I'm on solid ground taking the Professor's experience, research and conclusions with more seriousness than yours.
4.5bn years of climate change is an irrelevanceThat is also an very interesting viewpoint, pretty absurd but
interesting none the less.
whenAsk your sister what she means exactly.
modern humans have been around for such a miniscule fraction of that
time.
Those aren't my sister's words, they're mine.
I don't care about saving the planet. The planet is just a lump of rock
on which various life forms exist today, and on which in the future different
lifeforms will exist.
My only concern is about the quality of life of my offspring and their descendents.
Modern humans have existed for about 200,000 years, our direct
ancestors maybe 6 million.
That's between 0.004% and 0.13% of the time that this planet has existed.
For the purposes of "the planet", that's insignificant, and by the time the planet
is consumed by the sun the chances are that we'll as a species be long gone. So saving "the planet" doesn't matter from the planet's perspective.
Keeping the planet inhabitable and society economically viable for foreseeableWell lets say it about ONE HUNDRED years ago that man made the very
generations is what matters. If that's at risk, which the science clearly and overwhelmingly says it is to varying degrees, then why wouldn't
any sane person want to ask "Is there anything I can do to help mitigate this?"
first exhaust pipe and "we" produced the very first CO2..
In the past 4.5 billion years the world didn't explode at CO2 levels
varying from 200ppm to over 4000ppm, what in the hell makes anyone think that the world will come to an end if "we" increase the CO2 level to 401 ppm?
In the long run, the planet will survive anyway, up to the point at which
the sun destroys it. It's not about saving the planet - it will get along
fine without humans to experience it.
You can deny all you want,
Like what Sir, the 4.5 billion years of extreme climate change?
Or do you prefer to deny the varying CO2 concentration
Or maybe the ice age at a CO2 concentration of around 4000 ppm?
What exactly do you want me to deny?
You are denyng the existence or importance of recent man-madeA much better way to say it is :
climate change; aren't you?
YOU are denying 4.5 billion years of climate change.
There is nothing new the last 50 or 100 years. It all happened thousands
or millions of times before.
the science is such that any argument againstWhat do you mean, arguments against science?
it is already lost.
The climate BS has nothing to do with science.
You're now in such a minority that your opinions won'tActually it is not the minority but reality doesn't matter that is true. >> For your information, in science!!!! it is not about the number of
matter anyway.
supporters, you are confusing democracy with science.
In science one need only ONE single fact or observation to definitely
disprove a faulty
theory.
But you are right in saying that is not how it works in the climate
religion.
I'm no keen greenie. Being alert to man-made climate change isn't a religion for me; it's just a fact which I need to recognise is part of the world I live in.As always in religions, it is just a fact, according to the followers
that is.
I've got solar panels and an electric car not primarily because I've
got some mission to save the planet - it's mainly because it saves
me cash, and as a side bonus some of those actions will
result in lower levels of ancient CO2 being released into the
atmosphere, which I understand to be a "good thing".
You can deny the conclusions of the scienceThere is no such conclusion on science.
Show me the survey with the 97% scam and read it!
all you want and pretend to yourself that you're super intelligent and can see throughYou just have an opinion based on the propaganda we get shoved trough
some massive conspiracy that is leading most of the worlds'
scientists (not all, I fully accept that) to draw the same or similar conclusions about man-made climate change. Free free; I think
what you're doing is risking harm to future generations, but what
do I know.
our throats 20 times a day, that is NOT science.
It is just how it works, repeating nonsense over and over again and it becomes a "fact" except it isn't.
There is absolutely nothing scientific or reasonable about climate
religion, it makes no sense at all.
You can throw in a few remarks about my intelligence - which is an
insult - or accuse me of being some conspiracy theorist - which also is intended as a insult -.
Let me return the favor, if you think that conspiracies do not and never have existed, you are a idiot!
Mentioning such things is just a way trying to shut people down.
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
On Monday, 12 October 2020 at 17:02:42 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
On 10/12/20 4:25 PM, larkim wrote:Sadly it's just not worth a response beyond this.
On Monday, 12 October 2020 at 09:49:56 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:No it is not.
On 10/12/20 9:57 AM, larkim wrote:
On Saturday, 10 October 2020 at 12:37:19 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:Love your open minded view, starting with a fixed conclusion based on
On 10/10/20 11:45 AM, Bob Latham wrote:I should get you to spend a week with my sister who is a Professor of >>>>> climate science. I reckon you'd learn something. I doubt she would.
In article <rlrthp$6rq$1...@dont-email.me>,
Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Although I am all for clean air and such I do not think CO2 or NOx >>>>>>>> is any problem, no matter how many time the real climate deniers >>>>>>>> rCo the ones that deny the 4.5 billion years of climate change that >>>>>>>> is- try to push that message.
Yes, despite serious attempts by activists to airbrush climate
history out of existence.
Bob if you have invested zero time in investigating the climate
propaganda like yourself... you better don't make remarks as if you know >>>>>> the slightest thing about it because you obviously don't.
For your information, the climate cryers including NASA are the ones >>>>>> rewriting history and changing data to fit their propaganda.
Check it before you reply!
I like to separate or not include the rCYpollutionrCo caused by >>>>>>>> generating electricity because that is up to the energy companies, >>>>>>>> energy CAN be made pollution free and the way it is generated can >>>>>>>> change in the future.
What about the pollution being created to mine the minerals for wind >>>>>>> farms and solar panels and what happens to these items after their >>>>>>> short life?
There is no difference between this an all other things so this is a >>>>>> non-argument.
Wind power and solar are both intermittent, expensive and in the case >>>>>>> of wind kills flying animals at an alarming rate - nasty things.
Things can be solves and I don't know how bas is with those killing >>>>>> anymals, do you?
Figures?
Nuclear the only way.
No it is not, and it is very expensive.
My only concern about saying that is that the
woman from XR interviewed by Andrew Neil (or should I say
slaughtered) last year has now left XR and is promoting nuclear. I'm >>>>>>> with her now? :-)
Bob.
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
If we frame climate change in the context of whether we want a world >>>>> that humans can comfortably inhabit in the way that we are doing today >>>>> then things have to change, and we are undoubtedly making the climate >>>>> worse for ourselves.
nothing :-)
There's no "view" to be open minded about.
The overwhelming conclusion from the science is that man-made
climate change is factually happening.
You most likely just repeat the 97% lie but by all means, ask your
sister IF she know and if she can show you where this myth comes from.
The challenge is in understandingThere is no such evidence at all. There is no evidence the tiny bit CO2
whether that is a problem or not.
The climate has continually changed over 4.5bn years.
Undoubtedly so. Natural variations in levels of all gases and climate
temperature has happened, and will continue to happen with or
without human intervention. Indeed, at some point we may be able to,
and want to, control global climates so that they fit human existence
better.
But what happened in most of those years is an irrelevance to
you and me, and our children, our grandchildren etc today.
If you want to deny the evidence of man-made climate change then feel
free,
is a a major influence and you can be sure that the earth does not make
any distinction between CO2 coming from elephant farts or from a human
made exhaust pipe.
The 4000ppm CO2 wasn't a problem is the past so why should now 400ppm be? >>> there's not going to be any rational debate with you that will
convince you otherwise. In a toss up between a Professor at a majorScience doesn't work that way, now you are confusing science with religion. >>>
UK University and a poster on a F1 forum in terms of who I faith in for
credibility about climate change, I think I'm on solid ground taking the >>> Professor's experience, research and conclusions with more seriousness
than yours.
Well lets say it about ONE HUNDRED years ago that man made the very4.5bn years of climate change is an irrelevanceThat is also an very interesting viewpoint, pretty absurd but
interesting none the less.
whenAsk your sister what she means exactly.
modern humans have been around for such a miniscule fraction of that >>>>> time.
Those aren't my sister's words, they're mine.
I don't care about saving the planet. The planet is just a lump of rock
on which various life forms exist today, and on which in the future different
lifeforms will exist.
My only concern is about the quality of life of my offspring and their
descendents.
Modern humans have existed for about 200,000 years, our direct
ancestors maybe 6 million.
That's between 0.004% and 0.13% of the time that this planet has existed. >>>
For the purposes of "the planet", that's insignificant, and by the time the planet
is consumed by the sun the chances are that we'll as a species be long
gone. So saving "the planet" doesn't matter from the planet's perspective. >>>
Keeping the planet inhabitable and society economically viable for foreseeable
generations is what matters. If that's at risk, which the science clearly >>> and overwhelmingly says it is to varying degrees, then why wouldn't
any sane person want to ask "Is there anything I can do to help mitigate >>> this?"
first exhaust pipe and "we" produced the very first CO2..
In the past 4.5 billion years the world didn't explode at CO2 levels
varying from 200ppm to over 4000ppm, what in the hell makes anyone think
that the world will come to an end if "we" increase the CO2 level to 401
ppm?
A much better way to say it is :
In the long run, the planet will survive anyway, up to the point at which >>>>> the sun destroys it. It's not about saving the planet - it will get along >>>>> fine without humans to experience it.
You can deny all you want,
Like what Sir, the 4.5 billion years of extreme climate change?
Or do you prefer to deny the varying CO2 concentration
Or maybe the ice age at a CO2 concentration of around 4000 ppm?
What exactly do you want me to deny?
You are denyng the existence or importance of recent man-made
climate change; aren't you?
YOU are denying 4.5 billion years of climate change.
There is nothing new the last 50 or 100 years. It all happened thousands
or millions of times before.
As always in religions, it is just a fact, according to the followers
the science is such that any argument againstWhat do you mean, arguments against science?
it is already lost.
The climate BS has nothing to do with science.
You're now in such a minority that your opinions won'tActually it is not the minority but reality doesn't matter that is true. >>>> For your information, in science!!!! it is not about the number of
matter anyway.
supporters, you are confusing democracy with science.
In science one need only ONE single fact or observation to definitely
disprove a faulty
theory.
But you are right in saying that is not how it works in the climate
religion.
I'm no keen greenie. Being alert to man-made climate change isn't a
religion for me; it's just a fact which I need to recognise is part of the >>> world I live in.
that is.
There is no such conclusion on science.
I've got solar panels and an electric car not primarily because I've
got some mission to save the planet - it's mainly because it saves
me cash, and as a side bonus some of those actions will
result in lower levels of ancient CO2 being released into the
atmosphere, which I understand to be a "good thing".
You can deny the conclusions of the science
Show me the survey with the 97% scam and read it!
all you want and pretend to yourself that you're super intelligent and can see throughYou just have an opinion based on the propaganda we get shoved trough
some massive conspiracy that is leading most of the worlds'
scientists (not all, I fully accept that) to draw the same or similar
conclusions about man-made climate change. Free free; I think
what you're doing is risking harm to future generations, but what
do I know.
our throats 20 times a day, that is NOT science.
It is just how it works, repeating nonsense over and over again and it
becomes a "fact" except it isn't.
There is absolutely nothing scientific or reasonable about climate
religion, it makes no sense at all.
You can throw in a few remarks about my intelligence - which is an
insult - or accuse me of being some conspiracy theorist - which also is
intended as a insult -.
Let me return the favor, if you think that conspiracies do not and never
have existed, you are a idiot!
Mentioning such things is just a way trying to shut people down.
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
Climate change happens all the time. CO2 rises and falls all the time.
But in the last 4.5bn years, there hasn't been a human occupation of the planet of the size and scale that there is now.
Rising a falling sea levels in the period 2,500,000,000 to 2,000,000,000BC didn't matter to anyone because no-one was around.
In fact, climate change even at the levels that are being predicted by the worst models today probably wouldn't have caused any great real concern
to the worldwide human population until close to maybe as recent as
500 years ago, perhaps even more recent than that.
If nature had moved the goalposts for the spares human population around
the planet, the human population would have responded; they'd have migrated, they'd have farmed in different ways, they'd have changed their diets, they'd have relocated their settlements to higher ground, they'd have hunted other animals.
Or they'd have died if they didn't make adjustments, potentially.
I know it might sound trite, but if we accept that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs
and then we see an asteroid heading our way with contact predicted in 50 years
do we just sit back and say "look, asteroids have hit before, and they'll hit the planet
again, it's entirely natural, eventually things will recover".
It's the same with man-made climate change.
If it exists (and I utterly reject your assertion that there is no overwhelming
scientific consensus on this)
then there is a path towards a change in the
climate which we can either attempt to forecast and consider whether we
need to change anything, or we can ignore and let it happen anyway.
If our forecasts of impacts suggest that, with a human population at the levels
we have them now and the infrastructure around the world in place the way it is now, can the human population rapidly rearrange itself in a way that will allow life to carry on as normal.
The simple answer is that we cannot.
Previous history of global warming, either natural or man made is irrelevant because none of those incidences had to sustain a worldwide human
population of nearly 8bn people.
It's truly as simple as that.
If you honestly think that the global population can rapidly adapt to a changed
climate, then I have sympathy for your view that nothing needs to change.
As I've said a number of times, this isn't about "saving the planet", despite that being the shorthand in which the issue is discussed.
It's about saving (or avoiding massive disruption to) current societies, economies,
etc of humans.
You might be just happy to roll with the punches and let your offspring and subsequent generations deal any shit that comes after, but I don't think that's
a morally acceptable position, hence we disagree.
On 10/15/20 2:27 PM, larkim wrote:I'm happy to take this source to cite the 97% figure if you want, though I'm not particularly passionate about it. https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/
On Monday, 12 October 2020 at 17:02:42 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:Oh, and that is why you do not show me where that 97% nonsense is coming from?
On 10/12/20 4:25 PM, larkim wrote:Sadly it's just not worth a response beyond this.
On Monday, 12 October 2020 at 09:49:56 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:No it is not.
On 10/12/20 9:57 AM, larkim wrote:
On Saturday, 10 October 2020 at 12:37:19 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:Love your open minded view, starting with a fixed conclusion based on >>>> nothing :-)
On 10/10/20 11:45 AM, Bob Latham wrote:I should get you to spend a week with my sister who is a Professor of >>>>> climate science. I reckon you'd learn something. I doubt she would. >>>>>
In article <rlrthp$6rq$1...@dont-email.me>,
Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Although I am all for clean air and such I do not think CO2 or NOx >>>>>>>> is any problem, no matter how many time the real climate deniers >>>>>>>> rCo the ones that deny the 4.5 billion years of climate change that >>>>>>>> is- try to push that message.
Yes, despite serious attempts by activists to airbrush climate >>>>>>> history out of existence.
Bob if you have invested zero time in investigating the climate >>>>>> propaganda like yourself... you better don't make remarks as if you know
the slightest thing about it because you obviously don't.
For your information, the climate cryers including NASA are the ones >>>>>> rewriting history and changing data to fit their propaganda.
Check it before you reply!
I like to separate or not include the rCYpollutionrCo caused by >>>>>>>> generating electricity because that is up to the energy companies, >>>>>>>> energy CAN be made pollution free and the way it is generated can >>>>>>>> change in the future.
What about the pollution being created to mine the minerals for wind >>>>>>> farms and solar panels and what happens to these items after their >>>>>>> short life?
There is no difference between this an all other things so this is a >>>>>> non-argument.
Things can be solves and I don't know how bas is with those killing >>>>>> anymals, do you?
Wind power and solar are both intermittent, expensive and in the case
of wind kills flying animals at an alarming rate - nasty things. >>>>>>
Figures?
Nuclear the only way.
No it is not, and it is very expensive.
My only concern about saying that is that the
woman from XR interviewed by Andrew Neil (or should I say
slaughtered) last year has now left XR and is promoting nuclear. I'm >>>>>>> with her now? :-)
Bob.
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
If we frame climate change in the context of whether we want a world >>>>> that humans can comfortably inhabit in the way that we are doing today >>>>> then things have to change, and we are undoubtedly making the climate >>>>> worse for ourselves.
There's no "view" to be open minded about.
The overwhelming conclusion from the science is that man-made
climate change is factually happening.
You most likely just repeat the 97% lie but by all means, ask your
sister IF she know and if she can show you where this myth comes from. >>> The challenge is in understanding
whether that is a problem or not.There is no such evidence at all. There is no evidence the tiny bit CO2 >> is a a major influence and you can be sure that the earth does not make >> any distinction between CO2 coming from elephant farts or from a human
The climate has continually changed over 4.5bn years.
Undoubtedly so. Natural variations in levels of all gases and climate >>> temperature has happened, and will continue to happen with or
without human intervention. Indeed, at some point we may be able to,
and want to, control global climates so that they fit human existence >>> better.
But what happened in most of those years is an irrelevance to
you and me, and our children, our grandchildren etc today.
If you want to deny the evidence of man-made climate change then feel >>> free,
made exhaust pipe.
The 4000ppm CO2 wasn't a problem is the past so why should now 400ppm be? >>> there's not going to be any rational debate with you that will
convince you otherwise. In a toss up between a Professor at a majorScience doesn't work that way, now you are confusing science with religion.
UK University and a poster on a F1 forum in terms of who I faith in for >>> credibility about climate change, I think I'm on solid ground taking the >>> Professor's experience, research and conclusions with more seriousness >>> than yours.
Well lets say it about ONE HUNDRED years ago that man made the very
4.5bn years of climate change is an irrelevanceThat is also an very interesting viewpoint, pretty absurd but
interesting none the less.
whenAsk your sister what she means exactly.
modern humans have been around for such a miniscule fraction of that >>>>> time.
Those aren't my sister's words, they're mine.
I don't care about saving the planet. The planet is just a lump of rock >>> on which various life forms exist today, and on which in the future different
lifeforms will exist.
My only concern is about the quality of life of my offspring and their >>> descendents.
Modern humans have existed for about 200,000 years, our direct
ancestors maybe 6 million.
That's between 0.004% and 0.13% of the time that this planet has existed.
For the purposes of "the planet", that's insignificant, and by the time the planet
is consumed by the sun the chances are that we'll as a species be long >>> gone. So saving "the planet" doesn't matter from the planet's perspective.
Keeping the planet inhabitable and society economically viable for foreseeable
generations is what matters. If that's at risk, which the science clearly
and overwhelmingly says it is to varying degrees, then why wouldn't
any sane person want to ask "Is there anything I can do to help mitigate >>> this?"
first exhaust pipe and "we" produced the very first CO2..
In the past 4.5 billion years the world didn't explode at CO2 levels
varying from 200ppm to over 4000ppm, what in the hell makes anyone think >> that the world will come to an end if "we" increase the CO2 level to 401 >> ppm?
A much better way to say it is :
In the long run, the planet will survive anyway, up to the point at which
the sun destroys it. It's not about saving the planet - it will get along
fine without humans to experience it.
You can deny all you want,
Like what Sir, the 4.5 billion years of extreme climate change?
Or do you prefer to deny the varying CO2 concentration
Or maybe the ice age at a CO2 concentration of around 4000 ppm?
What exactly do you want me to deny?
You are denyng the existence or importance of recent man-made
climate change; aren't you?
YOU are denying 4.5 billion years of climate change.
There is nothing new the last 50 or 100 years. It all happened thousands >> or millions of times before.
As always in religions, it is just a fact, according to the followers
the science is such that any argument againstWhat do you mean, arguments against science?
it is already lost.
The climate BS has nothing to do with science.
You're now in such a minority that your opinions won'tActually it is not the minority but reality doesn't matter that is true.
matter anyway.
For your information, in science!!!! it is not about the number of
supporters, you are confusing democracy with science.
In science one need only ONE single fact or observation to definitely >>>> disprove a faulty
theory.
But you are right in saying that is not how it works in the climate >>>> religion.
I'm no keen greenie. Being alert to man-made climate change isn't a
religion for me; it's just a fact which I need to recognise is part of the
world I live in.
that is.
There is no such conclusion on science.
I've got solar panels and an electric car not primarily because I've
got some mission to save the planet - it's mainly because it saves
me cash, and as a side bonus some of those actions will
result in lower levels of ancient CO2 being released into the
atmosphere, which I understand to be a "good thing".
You can deny the conclusions of the science
Show me the survey with the 97% scam and read it!
all you want and pretend to yourself that you're super intelligent and can see throughYou just have an opinion based on the propaganda we get shoved trough
some massive conspiracy that is leading most of the worlds'
scientists (not all, I fully accept that) to draw the same or similar >>> conclusions about man-made climate change. Free free; I think
what you're doing is risking harm to future generations, but what
do I know.
our throats 20 times a day, that is NOT science.
It is just how it works, repeating nonsense over and over again and it
becomes a "fact" except it isn't.
There is absolutely nothing scientific or reasonable about climate
religion, it makes no sense at all.
You can throw in a few remarks about my intelligence - which is an
insult - or accuse me of being some conspiracy theorist - which also is >> intended as a insult -.
Let me return the favor, if you think that conspiracies do not and never >> have existed, you are a idiot!
Mentioning such things is just a way trying to shut people down.
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
That why you do not respond to the 4000ppm CO2 and ice age during that time?
Yes it is. Apart from a small niche of absolutely mad greenies who think that it would be better for humanity to be wiped out so that flowers can grow and dolphins can play freely in the seas, the whole point of the climate change debate is that the impact on humanity of climate change is too negative.Climate change happens all the time. CO2 rises and falls all the time.Wow, that is actually true.
But in the last 4.5bn years, there hasn't been a human occupation of the planet of the size and scale that there is now.That in not the point of the climate cryers.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/Rising a falling sea levels in the period 2,500,000,000 to 2,000,000,000BC didn't matter to anyone because no-one was around.That in not the point of the climate cryers.
In fact, climate change even at the levels that are being predicted by the worst models today probably wouldn't have caused any great real concernWould that be the same model that predicted the new ice age in the
to the worldwide human population until close to maybe as recent as
500 years ago, perhaps even more recent than that.
70ties? or the one that predicted that the Maldives would be under water
10 years ago? Just curious.
If nature had moved the goalposts for the spares human population around the planet, the human population would have responded; they'd have migrated,
they'd have farmed in different ways, they'd have changed their diets, they'd
have relocated their settlements to higher ground, they'd have hunted other animals.
Or they'd have died if they didn't make adjustments, potentially.
I know it might sound trite, but if we accept that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs
and then we see an asteroid heading our way with contact predicted in 50 years
do we just sit back and say "look, asteroids have hit before, and they'll hit the planet
again, it's entirely natural, eventually things will recover".
It's the same with man-made climate change.Man made you say? tell me about it.
What makes me think we can change the climate? The fact that we've done it already!If it exists (and I utterly reject your assertion that there is no overwhelmingThat is exactly why I asked you to SHOW ME where that myth comes from.
scientific consensus on this)
Not about what Obama or Gore told you but what is actually said about it. Why don't you show me?
then there is a path towards a change in theWhat's makes you think humans can change on nature or what will change
climate which we can either attempt to forecast and consider whether we need to change anything, or we can ignore and let it happen anyway.
if we hand over all our money to the governments?
If our forecasts of impacts suggest that, with a human population at the levels
we have them now and the infrastructure around the world in place the way it
is now, can the human population rapidly rearrange itself in a way that will
allow life to carry on as normal.
The simple answer is that we cannot.
Previous history of global warming, either natural or man made is irrelevant
because none of those incidences had to sustain a worldwide human population of nearly 8bn people.
It's truly as simple as that.
If you honestly think that the global population can rapidly adapt to a changed
climate, then I have sympathy for your view that nothing needs to change.
As I've said a number of times, this isn't about "saving the planet", despite
that being the shorthand in which the issue is discussed.
It's about saving (or avoiding massive disruption to) current societies, economies,
etc of humans.
You might be just happy to roll with the punches and let your offspring andWell apart that you seem to realize that climate change IS from the beginning of time, which is a remarkable and exceptional for the climate church.
subsequent generations deal any shit that comes after, but I don't think that's
a morally acceptable position, hence we disagree.
The whole point that they make is that WE humans caused the climate
change and we have to pay. TRILLIONS!
All we get back for handing over ALL our money is a little reduction in
CO2 output.
That and that alone should change the climate change...
400ppm CO2 is suddenly killing the earth, so they say :-)
4000 ppm was fine however.
On Thursday, 15 October 2020 at 16:30:21 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
On 10/15/20 2:27 PM, larkim wrote:
On Monday, 12 October 2020 at 17:02:42 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
On 10/12/20 4:25 PM, larkim wrote:
On Monday, 12 October 2020 at 09:49:56 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
On 10/12/20 9:57 AM, larkim wrote:
On Saturday, 10 October 2020 at 12:37:19 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
On 10/10/20 11:45 AM, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rlrthp$6rq$1...@dont-email.me>,
Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Sadly it's just not worth a response beyond this.Oh, and that is why you do not show me where that 97% nonsense is coming
from?
That why you do not respond to the 4000ppm CO2 and ice age during that time?
I'm happy to take this source to cite the 97% figure if you want, though I'm not particularly passionate about it.
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/
Wow, that is actually true.
Climate change happens all the time. CO2 rises and falls all the time.
That in not the point of the climate cryers.
But in the last 4.5bn years, there hasn't been a human occupation of the >>> planet of the size and scale that there is now.
Yes it is. Apart from a small niche of absolutely mad greenies who think that
it would be better for humanity to be wiped out so that flowers can grow and dolphins can play freely in the seas, the whole point of the climate change debate is that the impact on humanity of climate change is too negative.
Of course, there are side effects about "nature" and stuff, but that's less about
climate change and more about a debate about man's undoubted impact on natural landscapes like the rain forest or the seas etc. Which I hope you will
find it easy to agree exist, and are broadly "negative" (even if they aren't necessarily catastrophic.
That in not the point of the climate cryers.
Rising a falling sea levels in the period 2,500,000,000 to 2,000,000,000BC >>> didn't matter to anyone because no-one was around.
Would that be the same model that predicted the new ice age in the
In fact, climate change even at the levels that are being predicted by the >>> worst models today probably wouldn't have caused any great real concern
to the worldwide human population until close to maybe as recent as
500 years ago, perhaps even more recent than that.
70ties? or the one that predicted that the Maldives would be under water
10 years ago? Just curious.
Man made you say? tell me about it.
If nature had moved the goalposts for the spares human population around >>> the planet, the human population would have responded; they'd have migrated,
they'd have farmed in different ways, they'd have changed their diets, they'd
have relocated their settlements to higher ground, they'd have hunted other animals.
Or they'd have died if they didn't make adjustments, potentially.
I know it might sound trite, but if we accept that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs
and then we see an asteroid heading our way with contact predicted in 50 years
do we just sit back and say "look, asteroids have hit before, and they'll hit the planet
again, it's entirely natural, eventually things will recover".
It's the same with man-made climate change.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
That is exactly why I asked you to SHOW ME where that myth comes from.
If it exists (and I utterly reject your assertion that there is no overwhelming
scientific consensus on this)
Not about what Obama or Gore told you but what is actually said about it.
Why don't you show me?
then there is a path towards a change in theWhat's makes you think humans can change on nature or what will change
climate which we can either attempt to forecast and consider whether we
need to change anything, or we can ignore and let it happen anyway.
if we hand over all our money to the governments?
What makes me thhink we can change the climate?
The fact that we've done it already!
Well apart that you seem to realize that climate change IS from the
If our forecasts of impacts suggest that, with a human population at the levels
we have them now and the infrastructure around the world in place the way it
is now, can the human population rapidly rearrange itself in a way that will
allow life to carry on as normal.
The simple answer is that we cannot.
Previous history of global warming, either natural or man made is irrelevant
because none of those incidences had to sustain a worldwide human
population of nearly 8bn people.
It's truly as simple as that.
If you honestly think that the global population can rapidly adapt to a changed
climate, then I have sympathy for your view that nothing needs to change. >>>
As I've said a number of times, this isn't about "saving the planet", despite
that being the shorthand in which the issue is discussed.
It's about saving (or avoiding massive disruption to) current societies, economies,
etc of humans.
You might be just happy to roll with the punches and let your offspring and >>> subsequent generations deal any shit that comes after, but I don't think that's
a morally acceptable position, hence we disagree.
beginning of time, which is a remarkable and exceptional for the climate
church.
The whole point that they make is that WE humans caused the climate
change and we have to pay. TRILLIONS!
All we get back for handing over ALL our money is a little reduction in
CO2 output.
That and that alone should change the climate change...
400ppm CO2 is suddenly killing the earth, so they say :-)
4000 ppm was fine however.
If we spend Trillions on averting / adjusting the direction of the climate then who do you think benefits? "Governments" or the businesses that
provide the services (and thereafter the people that work for them).
If there is a conspiracy amongst anyone to promote climate change as being
a fact when it's a fiction, it should be big, global businesses that are driving
it - firms like the energy / oil / motor firms, as these are the ones that can
make money out of the solutions.
Just to humour me, if you were ever to be convinced that man-made climate change was occurring,
what would you do? Sit by and watch, or be prepared to invest in trying to solve it?
On 10/16/20 12:36 PM, larkim wrote:OK, you were right about Honda / McLaren.
On Thursday, 15 October 2020 at 16:30:21 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:I am not, at least not in a way to think humans are the main cause.
Just to humour me, if you were ever to be convinced that man-made climate change was occurring,
and that there were negative impacts of that overall
what would you do? Sit by and watch, or be prepared to invest in trying to solve it?Trust me I would solve it for a tiny fraction of the costs they are
wasting now.
Edmund
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
On Friday, 16 October 2020 at 14:30:50 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
On 10/16/20 12:36 PM, larkim wrote:OK, you were right about Honda / McLaren.
On Thursday, 15 October 2020 at 16:30:21 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:I am not, at least not in a way to think humans are the main cause.
Just to humour me, if you were ever to be convinced that man-made climate >>> change was occurring,
and that there were negative impacts of that overall
what would you do? Sit by and watch, or be prepared to invest in trying to >>> solve it?Trust me I would solve it for a tiny fraction of the costs they are
wasting now.
Edmund
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
But let's not push how great you are shall we?
On 10/19/20 1:37 PM, larkim wrote:Sorry, but I was trying to lighten the mood!!
On Friday, 16 October 2020 at 14:30:50 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
On 10/16/20 12:36 PM, larkim wrote:OK, you were right about Honda / McLaren.
On Thursday, 15 October 2020 at 16:30:21 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:I am not, at least not in a way to think humans are the main cause.
Just to humour me, if you were ever to be convinced that man-made climate
change was occurring,
and that there were negative impacts of that overall
what would you do? Sit by and watch, or be prepared to invest in trying toTrust me I would solve it for a tiny fraction of the costs they are
solve it?
wasting now.
Edmund
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
But let's not push how great you are shall we?yes let's end this with a another derogatory remark, although I was
curious to whether you could give a substantive response about the 97%
myth ... climate cryers never do, they prefer to refer, just like you,
to a so-called scientific study that they themselves never have seen,
let alone, read.
Edmund
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
On Monday, 19 October 2020 at 13:20:44 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
On 10/19/20 1:37 PM, larkim wrote:Sorry, but I was trying to lighten the mood!!
On Friday, 16 October 2020 at 14:30:50 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:yes let's end this with a another derogatory remark, although I was
On 10/16/20 12:36 PM, larkim wrote:OK, you were right about Honda / McLaren.
On Thursday, 15 October 2020 at 16:30:21 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:I am not, at least not in a way to think humans are the main cause.
Just to humour me, if you were ever to be convinced that man-made climate >>>>> change was occurring,
and that there were negative impacts of that overall
what would you do? Sit by and watch, or be prepared to invest in trying toTrust me I would solve it for a tiny fraction of the costs they are
solve it?
wasting now.
Edmund
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
But let's not push how great you are shall we?
curious to whether you could give a substantive response about the 97%
myth ... climate cryers never do, they prefer to refer, just like you,
to a so-called scientific study that they themselves never have seen,
let alone, read.
Edmund
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
You claimed that you have the intellect and the capability to solve
the (in your view) fictitious climate change problem at a tiny fraction
of the cost being absorbed into those efforts at the moment.
Forgive me for thinking you might have been over-exaggerating for
slightly comic effect!
I'm not an expert.
I never raised 97% or 4000ppm as numbers so I don't
feel the onus on me is to prove them.
All I said was that the overwhelming
majority of climate scientists have drawn the conclusion based on their observation and analysis that we are in a period of man-made climate
change.
The NASA link backs that up. If you want, please present the evidence
that climate scientists don't believe that. Avoid though quoting studies which don't rely on climate scientists, and which use "scientists" in the broadest sense. I don't care whether a pharmacologist or a particle physicist comments on climate change, just as they wouldn't care if
my little sister commented on their fields as she would lack authority.
I'm not a scientist in any way. I am purely a layman who has read some stuff, but not by any means a lot, which leads me to conclude that
I am in the right "camp" if I go along with those working in the field of climate science that report that we are in a period where we are, and
have already, causing / caused damage to the climate through man-made actions.
Feel free to draw alternative conclusions for yourself.
I'm sure you are as
confident in your conclusions as I am in mine, and thus neither of us will likely change our minds. I'm open to being persuaded, and recognise that
I am biased in my view to a degree because to be a climate change denier whilst having Christmas lunch with my Professorial little sister and her partner (who if anything is even better qualified in the field than she is) would make for a very argumentative time over the turkey. My respect for
her intellect and academic rigour means I do trust what she says on this,
and I'm sure if you had a sibling working in a controversial field you might have a similar view.
I think we'll just have to agree to differ. Feel free to reply, but don't expect
me to respond any further as I think we've exhausted any useful energy on this without either of us likely to change our tune.
Yes you said that and that is NOT TRUE. Hence I said look it up ( thatNOT TRUE, FAKE NEWS, LOCK 'EM UP !
97% myth )
Of course you don't look it up and keep repeating this nonsense, I know.
On 20/10/2020 4:25 am, Edmund wrote:
NOT TRUE, FAKE NEWS, LOCK 'EM UP !
Yes you said that and that is NOT TRUE. Hence I said look it up ( that
97% myth )
Of course you don't look it up and keep repeating this nonsense, I know.
Denial of the facts accepted by the vast majority of people with
expertise who ought to know.
Ring a bell ?
geoff
On 10/19/20 11:50 PM, geoff wrote:
On 20/10/2020 4:25 am, Edmund wrote:
NOT TRUE, FAKE NEWS, LOCK 'EM UP !
Yes you said that and that is NOT TRUE. Hence I said look it up ( that
97% myth )
Of course you don't look it up and keep repeating this nonsense, I know.
Denial of the facts accepted by the vast majority of people with
expertise who ought to know.
Ring a bell ?
geoffOK then YOU show us where that 97% comes from, the original question and answers.
Let me guess, you cannot produce it either :-)
Rings a bell? Of course not.
Edmund
--I said I wouldn't respond but just to note the first person to raise 97% on this
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
On Monday, 19 October 2020 at 23:53:20 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
On 10/19/20 11:50 PM, geoff wrote:I said I wouldn't respond but just to note the first person to raise 97% on this
On 20/10/2020 4:25 am, Edmund wrote:OK then YOU show us where that 97% comes from, the original question and
Yes you said that and that is NOT TRUE. Hence I said look it up ( that >>>> 97% myth )
Of course you don't look it up and keep repeating this nonsense, I know. >>> NOT TRUE, FAKE NEWS, LOCK 'EM UP !
Denial of the facts accepted by the vast majority of people with
expertise who ought to know.
Ring a bell ?
geoff
answers.
Let me guess, you cannot produce it either :-)
Rings a bell? Of course not.
Edmund
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
thread was you!
aware of or am wedded to in any way!
If you want to get excited about proving whether it's 82%, 97%, 99% (or even 49% or
lower), the feel free to fill your boots.
My only observation about the point was that there was a scientific consensus that man made climate change is occuring.
I linked to a reputable source for that claim, and lining that up with what I have read in the press and on
other online news sources (or the "MSM" which for some reason seems to be
a derogatory term - the media has its faults, but it seems to me better to rely on
well regarded sources from across the globe and across political persuasions than a just on niche perspectives) makes me confident in its veracity.
On Saturday, 10 October 2020 at 12:37:19 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
On 10/10/20 11:45 AM, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rlrthp$6rq$1...@dont-email.me>,
Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Although I am all for clean air and such I do not think CO2 or NOx
is any problem, no matter how many time the real climate deniers
rCo the ones that deny the 4.5 billion years of climate change that
is- try to push that message.
Yes, despite serious attempts by activists to airbrush climate
history out of existence.
Bob if you have invested zero time in investigating the climate
propaganda like yourself... you better don't make remarks as if you know the slightest thing about it because you obviously don't.
For your information, the climate cryers including NASA are the ones rewriting history and changing data to fit their propaganda.
Check it before you reply!
I like to separate or not include the rCYpollutionrCo caused by
generating electricity because that is up to the energy companies,
energy CAN be made pollution free and the way it is generated can
change in the future.
What about the pollution being created to mine the minerals for wind farms and solar panels and what happens to these items after their
short life?
There is no difference between this an all other things so this is a non-argument.
Wind power and solar are both intermittent, expensive and in the case
of wind kills flying animals at an alarming rate - nasty things.
Things can be solves and I don't know how bas is with those killing anymals, do you?
Figures?
Nuclear the only way.
No it is not, and it is very expensive.
My only concern about saying that is that the
woman from XR interviewed by Andrew Neil (or should I say
slaughtered) last year has now left XR and is promoting nuclear. I'm with her now? :-)
Bob.
Do you always talk down to folks ?--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George OrwellI should get you to spend a week with my sister who is a Professor of climate science. I reckon you'd learn something. I doubt she would.
If we frame climate change in the context of whether we want a world
that humans can comfortably inhabit in the way that we are doing today
then things have to change, and we are undoubtedly making the climate
worse for ourselves. 4.5bn years of climate change is an irrelevance when modern humans have been around for such a miniscule fraction of that
time.
In the long run, the planet will survive anyway, up to the point at which the sun destroys it. It's not about saving the planet - it will get along fine without humans to experience it.
You can deny all you want, the science is such that any argument against
it is already lost. You're now in such a minority that your opinions won't matter anyway.
On 10/20/20 12:28 PM, larkim wrote:
My only observation about the point was that there was a scientific
consensus
that man made climate change is occuring.
The funny thing - apart from your repeated "consensus" which has no
place is science to begin with, is that nobody is "denying" climate change. "Climate deniers" is absurd by itself, what should that mean? something
like a tree deniers, or a car denier?
It is invented by the spin doctors of the climate cryers who invented a ridiculous word-a suggesting to deny something obvious and
associate it holocaust deniers on top of that.
No one and least of all climate realists are denying climate change, we
are not even denying humans play SOME role in that.
Point is, there is no proof that humans are the main cause of climate
change now, we where not in that past 4.5 billion years-a and it
certainly is not the end of the world.
On 2020-10-20 5:05 a.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/20/20 12:28 PM, larkim wrote:
My only observation about the point was that there was a scientific
consensus
that man made climate change is occuring.
The funny thing - apart from your repeated "consensus" which has no
place is science to begin with, is that nobody is "denying" climate
change.
"Climate deniers" is absurd by itself, what should that mean?
something like a tree deniers, or a car denier?
It is invented by the spin doctors of the climate cryers who invented
a ridiculous word-a suggesting to deny something obvious and
associate it holocaust deniers on top of that.
No one and least of all climate realists are denying climate change,
we are not even denying humans play SOME role in that.
Point is, there is no proof that humans are the main cause of climate
change now, we where not in that past 4.5 billion years-a and it
certainly is not the end of the world.
Actually, for a goodly long time the climate deniers were doing
precisely that: denying that the climate was changing.
You still read many people trying to deny it is changing by pointing out that some places are getting more snow or were colder this summer.
What most (such as yourself) have done is to now shift gears.
"OK, climate is changing, but we're not the cause".
On Monday, 19 October 2020 at 23:53:20 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
On 10/19/20 11:50 PM, geoff wrote:I said I wouldn't respond but just to note the first person to raise 97% on this
On 20/10/2020 4:25 am, Edmund wrote:OK then YOU show us where that 97% comes from, the original question and
Yes you said that and that is NOT TRUE. Hence I said look it up ( that >>>> 97% myth )
Of course you don't look it up and keep repeating this nonsense, I know. >>> NOT TRUE, FAKE NEWS, LOCK 'EM UP !
Denial of the facts accepted by the vast majority of people with
expertise who ought to know.
Ring a bell ?
geoff
answers.
Let me guess, you cannot produce it either :-)
Rings a bell? Of course not.
Edmund
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
thread was you! I'll be honest, it's not a number I was previously specifically
aware of or am wedded to in any way!
If you want to get excited about proving whether it's 82%, 97%, 99% (or even 49% or
lower), the feel free to fill your boots.
My only observation about the point was that there was a scientific consensus that man made climate change is occuring. I linked to a reputable source
for that claim, and lining that up with what I have read in the press and on other online news sources (or the "MSM" which for some reason seems to be
a derogatory term - the media has its faults, but it seems to me better to rely on
well regarded sources from across the globe and across political persuasions than a just on niche perspectives) makes me confident in its veracity.
On Monday, October 12, 2020 at 6:57:43 PM UTC+11, larkim wrote:
On Saturday, 10 October 2020 at 12:37:19 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
On 10/10/20 11:45 AM, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <rlrthp$6rq$1...@dont-email.me>,
Edmund <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Although I am all for clean air and such I do not think CO2 or NOx
is any problem, no matter how many time the real climate deniers
rCo the ones that deny the 4.5 billion years of climate change that >> is- try to push that message.
Yes, despite serious attempts by activists to airbrush climate
history out of existence.
Bob if you have invested zero time in investigating the climate propaganda like yourself... you better don't make remarks as if you know the slightest thing about it because you obviously don't.
For your information, the climate cryers including NASA are the ones rewriting history and changing data to fit their propaganda.
Check it before you reply!
I like to separate or not include the rCYpollutionrCo caused by
generating electricity because that is up to the energy companies,
energy CAN be made pollution free and the way it is generated can
change in the future.
What about the pollution being created to mine the minerals for wind farms and solar panels and what happens to these items after their short life?
There is no difference between this an all other things so this is a non-argument.
Wind power and solar are both intermittent, expensive and in the case of wind kills flying animals at an alarming rate - nasty things.
Things can be solves and I don't know how bas is with those killing anymals, do you?
Figures?
Nuclear the only way.
No it is not, and it is very expensive.
My only concern about saying that is that the
woman from XR interviewed by Andrew Neil (or should I say
slaughtered) last year has now left XR and is promoting nuclear. I'm with her now? :-)
Bob.
Not always no.--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George OrwellI should get you to spend a week with my sister who is a Professor of climate science. I reckon you'd learn something. I doubt she would.
If we frame climate change in the context of whether we want a world
that humans can comfortably inhabit in the way that we are doing today then things have to change, and we are undoubtedly making the climate worse for ourselves. 4.5bn years of climate change is an irrelevance when modern humans have been around for such a miniscule fraction of that
time.
In the long run, the planet will survive anyway, up to the point at which the sun destroys it. It's not about saving the planet - it will get along fine without humans to experience it.
You can deny all you want, the science is such that any argument against it is already lost. You're now in such a minority that your opinions won't matter anyway.
Do you always talk down to folks ?
On 20/10/2020 11:28 pm, larkim wrote:Yep, that's what I was assuming Edmund meant.
On Monday, 19 October 2020 at 23:53:20 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:
On 10/19/20 11:50 PM, geoff wrote:I said I wouldn't respond but just to note the first person to raise 97% on this
On 20/10/2020 4:25 am, Edmund wrote:OK then YOU show us where that 97% comes from, the original question and >> answers.
NOT TRUE, FAKE NEWS, LOCK 'EM UP !
Yes you said that and that is NOT TRUE. Hence I said look it up ( that >>>> 97% myth )
Of course you don't look it up and keep repeating this nonsense, I know.
Denial of the facts accepted by the vast majority of people with
expertise who ought to know.
Ring a bell ?
geoff
Let me guess, you cannot produce it either :-)
Rings a bell? Of course not.
Edmund
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
thread was you! I'll be honest, it's not a number I was previously specifically
aware of or am wedded to in any way!
If you want to get excited about proving whether it's 82%, 97%, 99% (or even 49% or
lower), the feel free to fill your boots.
My only observation about the point was that there was a scientific consensusI've not seen the acronym 'MSM' before but thinking about it in context I guess it's likely to mean
that man made climate change is occuring. I linked to a reputable source for that claim, and lining that up with what I have read in the press and on
other online news sources (or the "MSM" which for some reason seems to be a derogatory term - the media has its faults, but it seems to me better to rely on
well regarded sources from across the globe and across political persuasions
than a just on niche perspectives) makes me confident in its veracity.
Main Stream Media?
--
Shaun.
On 10/21/20 8:35 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-10-20 5:05 a.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/20/20 12:28 PM, larkim wrote:
My only observation about the point was that there was a scientific
consensus
that man made climate change is occuring.
The funny thing - apart from your repeated "consensus" which has no
place is science to begin with, is that nobody is "denying" climate
change.
"Climate deniers" is absurd by itself, what should that mean?
something like a tree deniers, or a car denier?
It is invented by the spin doctors of the climate cryers who invented
a ridiculous word-a suggesting to deny something obvious and
associate it holocaust deniers on top of that.
No one and least of all climate realists are denying climate change,
we are not even denying humans play SOME role in that.
Point is, there is no proof that humans are the main cause of climate
change now, we where not in that past 4.5 billion years-a and it
certainly is not the end of the world.
Actually, for a goodly long time the climate deniers were doing
precisely that: denying that the climate was changing.
No idiots like yourself denying the climate is changing for 4.5 billion years and accusing normal people for everything they do themselves....
You still read many people trying to deny it is changing by pointing
out that some places are getting more snow or were colder this summer.
What most (such as yourself) have done is to now shift gears.
"OK, climate is changing, but we're not the cause".
I am sure there are people - such as yourself - thinking that there is a
pot of gold on the end of a rainbow....
On 2020-10-21 12:19 a.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/21/20 8:35 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-10-20 5:05 a.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/20/20 12:28 PM, larkim wrote:
My only observation about the point was that there was a scientific >>>>> consensus
that man made climate change is occuring.
The funny thing - apart from your repeated "consensus" which has no
place is science to begin with, is that nobody is "denying" climate
change.
"Climate deniers" is absurd by itself, what should that mean?
something like a tree deniers, or a car denier?
It is invented by the spin doctors of the climate cryers who
invented a ridiculous word-a suggesting to deny something obvious and
associate it holocaust deniers on top of that.
No one and least of all climate realists are denying climate change,
we are not even denying humans play SOME role in that.
Point is, there is no proof that humans are the main cause of
climate change now, we where not in that past 4.5 billion years-a and >>>> it certainly is not the end of the world.
Actually, for a goodly long time the climate deniers were doing
precisely that: denying that the climate was changing.
No idiots like yourself denying the climate is changing for 4.5
billion years and accusing normal people for everything they do
themselves....
Nope. No one of consequence who is saying that there is a climate change going on right now of a different origin and rate has ever said that
climate has never changed before.
That's simply a lie you're now telling.
You still read many people trying to deny it is changing by pointing
out that some places are getting more snow or were colder this summer.
What most (such as yourself) have done is to now shift gears.
"OK, climate is changing, but we're not the cause".
I am sure there are people - such as yourself - thinking that there is
a pot of gold on the end of a rainbow....
You don't even know why you wrote that.
Look at the current RATE of change, you twit.
On 10/21/20 6:43 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-10-21 12:19 a.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/21/20 8:35 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-10-20 5:05 a.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/20/20 12:28 PM, larkim wrote:
My only observation about the point was that there was a
scientific consensus
that man made climate change is occuring.
The funny thing - apart from your repeated "consensus" which has no >>>>> place is science to begin with, is that nobody is "denying" climate >>>>> change.
"Climate deniers" is absurd by itself, what should that mean?
something like a tree deniers, or a car denier?
It is invented by the spin doctors of the climate cryers who
invented a ridiculous word-a suggesting to deny something obvious and >>>>> associate it holocaust deniers on top of that.
No one and least of all climate realists are denying climate
change, we are not even denying humans play SOME role in that.
Point is, there is no proof that humans are the main cause of
climate change now, we where not in that past 4.5 billion years
and it certainly is not the end of the world.
Actually, for a goodly long time the climate deniers were doing
precisely that: denying that the climate was changing.
No idiots like yourself denying the climate is changing for 4.5
billion years and accusing normal people for everything they do
themselves....
Nope. No one of consequence who is saying that there is a climate
change going on right now of a different origin and rate has ever said
that climate has never changed before.
That's simply a lie you're now telling.
Well that is what you weirdos suggest don't you.
But by all means SHOW us where climate realists tell you there wasn't a
ice age or the climate was exactly the same for 4.5 billion years.
Take your time......
You still read many people trying to deny it is changing by pointing
out that some places are getting more snow or were colder this summer. >>>>
What most (such as yourself) have done is to now shift gears.
"OK, climate is changing, but we're not the cause".
I am sure there are people - such as yourself - thinking that there
is a pot of gold on the end of a rainbow....
You don't even know why you wrote that.
You don't know why you get an insult back after you insulted someone?
Hmm you never was the brightest light of your class I guess.
Look at the current RATE of change, you twit.
Which rate exactly, measured where and when, show me.
On 2020-10-21 10:55 a.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/21/20 6:43 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-10-21 12:19 a.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/21/20 8:35 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-10-20 5:05 a.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/20/20 12:28 PM, larkim wrote:
My only observation about the point was that there was a
scientific consensus
that man made climate change is occuring.
The funny thing - apart from your repeated "consensus" which has
no place is science to begin with, is that nobody is "denying"
climate change.
"Climate deniers" is absurd by itself, what should that mean?
something like a tree deniers, or a car denier?
It is invented by the spin doctors of the climate cryers who
invented a ridiculous word-a suggesting to deny something obvious and >>>>>> associate it holocaust deniers on top of that.
No one and least of all climate realists are denying climate
change, we are not even denying humans play SOME role in that.
Point is, there is no proof that humans are the main cause of
climate change now, we where not in that past 4.5 billion years
and it certainly is not the end of the world.
Actually, for a goodly long time the climate deniers were doing
precisely that: denying that the climate was changing.
No idiots like yourself denying the climate is changing for 4.5
billion years and accusing normal people for everything they do
themselves....
Nope. No one of consequence who is saying that there is a climate
change going on right now of a different origin and rate has ever
said that climate has never changed before.
That's simply a lie you're now telling.
Well that is what you weirdos suggest don't you.
Nope.
But by all means SHOW us where climate realists tell you there wasn't
a ice age or the climate was exactly the same for 4.5 billion years.
Take your time......
Sorry, but it's your job to support your claim that people have been
denying that climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years.
Take your time...
You still read many people trying to deny it is changing by
pointing out that some places are getting more snow or were colder
this summer.
What most (such as yourself) have done is to now shift gears.
"OK, climate is changing, but we're not the cause".
I am sure there are people - such as yourself - thinking that there
is a pot of gold on the end of a rainbow....
You don't even know why you wrote that.
You don't know why you get an insult back after you insulted someone?
Hmm you never was the brightest light of your class I guess.
Look at the current RATE of change, you twit.
Which rate exactly, measured where and when, show me.
It's been done multiple times already, but OK:
<https://xkcd.com/1732/>
22,000 years of the Earth's temperature, and there is only one time it
has changed as rapidly as it is changing right now.
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/All_palaeotemps.svg>
Before you jump in, remember that the horizontal scale changes between
the part show the last 20,000 years, and the next section (same width in
the graphic), which shows 980,000 years.
On 10/21/20 8:27 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-10-21 10:55 a.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/21/20 6:43 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-10-21 12:19 a.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/21/20 8:35 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-10-20 5:05 a.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/20/20 12:28 PM, larkim wrote:
My only observation about the point was that there was a
scientific consensus
that man made climate change is occuring.
The funny thing - apart from your repeated "consensus" which has >>>>>>> no place is science to begin with, is that nobody is "denying"
climate change.
"Climate deniers" is absurd by itself, what should that mean?
something like a tree deniers, or a car denier?
It is invented by the spin doctors of the climate cryers who
invented a ridiculous word-a suggesting to deny something obvious and >>>>>>> associate it holocaust deniers on top of that.
No one and least of all climate realists are denying climate
change, we are not even denying humans play SOME role in that.
Point is, there is no proof that humans are the main cause of
climate change now, we where not in that past 4.5 billion years >>>>>>> and it certainly is not the end of the world.
Actually, for a goodly long time the climate deniers were doing
precisely that: denying that the climate was changing.
No idiots like yourself denying the climate is changing for 4.5
billion years and accusing normal people for everything they do
themselves....
Nope. No one of consequence who is saying that there is a climate
change going on right now of a different origin and rate has ever
said that climate has never changed before.
That's simply a lie you're now telling.
Well that is what you weirdos suggest don't you.
Nope.
But by all means SHOW us where climate realists tell you there wasn't
a ice age or the climate was exactly the same for 4.5 billion years.
Take your time......
Sorry, but it's your job to support your claim that people have been
denying that climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years.
Take your time...
Nope your turn of course you already forgot, never mind i help you
remember :
---------
Actually, for a goodly long time the climate deniers were doing
precisely that: denying that the climate was changing.
-----------
SHOW US!
You still read many people trying to deny it is changing by
pointing out that some places are getting more snow or were colder >>>>>> this summer.
What most (such as yourself) have done is to now shift gears.
"OK, climate is changing, but we're not the cause".
I am sure there are people - such as yourself - thinking that there >>>>> is a pot of gold on the end of a rainbow....
You don't even know why you wrote that.
You don't know why you get an insult back after you insulted someone?
Hmm you never was the brightest light of your class I guess.
Look at the current RATE of change, you twit.
Which rate exactly, measured where and when, show me.
It's been done multiple times already, but OK:
<https://xkcd.com/1732/>
I did not ask for a cartoon, read again what I asked.
22,000 years of the Earth's temperature, and there is only one time it
has changed as rapidly as it is changing right now.
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/All_palaeotemps.svg>
Before you jump in, remember that the horizontal scale changes between
the part show the last 20,000 years, and the next section (same width
in the graphic), which shows 980,000 years.
If you want me to look at a rate you have to produce a graph in which
such a ting is visible and you have to show where and when it is
measured, IF it is measured!
- FYI most figures come from computer models AND are ""corrected"" to
get the desired outcome.
If you want to compare it with some time in history you have to show a
graph in the same resolution and scale.
Although 500 million years is quite some time, it isn't 4.5 billion years.
On 2020-10-21 3:01 p.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/21/20 8:27 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-10-21 10:55 a.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/21/20 6:43 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-10-21 12:19 a.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/21/20 8:35 AM, Alan Baker wrote:
On 2020-10-20 5:05 a.m., Edmund wrote:
On 10/20/20 12:28 PM, larkim wrote:
My only observation about the point was that there was a
scientific consensus
that man made climate change is occuring.
The funny thing - apart from your repeated "consensus" which has >>>>>>>> no place is science to begin with, is that nobody is "denying" >>>>>>>> climate change.
"Climate deniers" is absurd by itself, what should that mean? >>>>>>>> something like a tree deniers, or a car denier?
It is invented by the spin doctors of the climate cryers who
invented a ridiculous word-a suggesting to deny something obvious >>>>>>>> and
associate it holocaust deniers on top of that.
No one and least of all climate realists are denying climate
change, we are not even denying humans play SOME role in that. >>>>>>>> Point is, there is no proof that humans are the main cause of >>>>>>>> climate change now, we where not in that past 4.5 billion years >>>>>>>> and it certainly is not the end of the world.
Actually, for a goodly long time the climate deniers were doing >>>>>>> precisely that: denying that the climate was changing.
No idiots like yourself denying the climate is changing for 4.5
billion years and accusing normal people for everything they do
themselves....
Nope. No one of consequence who is saying that there is a climate
change going on right now of a different origin and rate has ever
said that climate has never changed before.
That's simply a lie you're now telling.
Well that is what you weirdos suggest don't you.
Nope.
But by all means SHOW us where climate realists tell you there
wasn't a ice age or the climate was exactly the same for 4.5 billion
years.
Take your time......
Sorry, but it's your job to support your claim that people have been
denying that climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years.
Take your time...
Nope your turn of course you already forgot, never mind i help you
remember :
---------
Actually, for a goodly long time the climate deniers were doing
precisely that: denying that the climate was changing.
-----------
SHOW US!
No, actually. That was written in response to you saying:
"No idiots like yourself denying the climate is changing for 4.5 billion years and accusing normal people for everything they do themselves...."
So you first, sunshine.
You still read many people trying to deny it is changing by
pointing out that some places are getting more snow or were
colder this summer.
What most (such as yourself) have done is to now shift gears.
"OK, climate is changing, but we're not the cause".
I am sure there are people - such as yourself - thinking that
there is a pot of gold on the end of a rainbow....
You don't even know why you wrote that.
You don't know why you get an insult back after you insulted someone?
Hmm you never was the brightest light of your class I guess.
Look at the current RATE of change, you twit.
Which rate exactly, measured where and when, show me.
It's been done multiple times already, but OK:
<https://xkcd.com/1732/>
I did not ask for a cartoon, read again what I asked.
22,000 years of the Earth's temperature, and there is only one time
it has changed as rapidly as it is changing right now.
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/All_palaeotemps.svg> >>>
Before you jump in, remember that the horizontal scale changes
between the part show the last 20,000 years, and the next section
(same width in the graphic), which shows 980,000 years.
If you want me to look at a rate you have to produce a graph in which
such a ting is visible and you have to show where and when it is
measured, IF it is measured!
- FYI most figures come from computer models AND are ""corrected"" to
get the desired outcome.
Right.
So even if I show you a graph, you'll deny it out of hand.
I showed you TWO graphs, sunshine.
If you want to compare it with some time in history you have to show a
graph in the same resolution and scale.
Although 500 million years is quite some time, it isn't 4.5 billion
years.
LOL!
On Wednesday, 21 October 2020 at 08:20:49 UTC+1, ~misfit~ wrote:
On 20/10/2020 11:28 pm, larkim wrote:
On Monday, 19 October 2020 at 23:53:20 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:I've not seen the acronym 'MSM' before but thinking about it in context I guess it's likely to mean
On 10/19/20 11:50 PM, geoff wrote:I said I wouldn't respond but just to note the first person to raise 97% on this
On 20/10/2020 4:25 am, Edmund wrote:OK then YOU show us where that 97% comes from, the original question and >>>> answers.
Yes you said that and that is NOT TRUE. Hence I said look it up ( that >>>>>> 97% myth )
Of course you don't look it up and keep repeating this nonsense, I know. >>>>> NOT TRUE, FAKE NEWS, LOCK 'EM UP !
Denial of the facts accepted by the vast majority of people with
expertise who ought to know.
Ring a bell ?
geoff
Let me guess, you cannot produce it either :-)
Rings a bell? Of course not.
Edmund
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
thread was you! I'll be honest, it's not a number I was previously specifically
aware of or am wedded to in any way!
If you want to get excited about proving whether it's 82%, 97%, 99% (or even 49% or
lower), the feel free to fill your boots.
My only observation about the point was that there was a scientific consensus
that man made climate change is occuring. I linked to a reputable source >>> for that claim, and lining that up with what I have read in the press and on
other online news sources (or the "MSM" which for some reason seems to be >>> a derogatory term - the media has its faults, but it seems to me better to rely on
well regarded sources from across the globe and across political persuasions
than a just on niche perspectives) makes me confident in its veracity.
Main Stream Media?
--
Shaun.
Yep, that's what I was assuming Edmund meant.
On 22/10/2020 4:30 am, larkim wrote:you sad, sorry, piece of shit
On Wednesday, 21 October 2020 at 08:20:49 UTC+1, ~misfit~ wrote:
On 20/10/2020 11:28 pm, larkim wrote:
On Monday, 19 October 2020 at 23:53:20 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:Main Stream Media?
On 10/19/20 11:50 PM, geoff wrote:I said I wouldn't respond but just to note the first person to raise 97% on this
On 20/10/2020 4:25 am, Edmund wrote:OK then YOU show us where that 97% comes from, the original question and
NOT TRUE, FAKE NEWS, LOCK 'EM UP !
Yes you said that and that is NOT TRUE. Hence I said look it up ( that
97% myth )
Of course you don't look it up and keep repeating this nonsense, I know.
Denial of the facts accepted by the vast majority of people with
expertise who ought to know.
Ring a bell ?
geoff
answers.
Let me guess, you cannot produce it either :-)
Rings a bell? Of course not.
Edmund
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
thread was you! I'll be honest, it's not a number I was previously specifically
aware of or am wedded to in any way!
If you want to get excited about proving whether it's 82%, 97%, 99% (or even 49% or
lower), the feel free to fill your boots.
My only observation about the point was that there was a scientific consensus
that man made climate change is occuring. I linked to a reputable source >>> for that claim, and lining that up with what I have read in the press and on
other online news sources (or the "MSM" which for some reason seems to be
a derogatory term - the media has its faults, but it seems to me better to rely on
well regarded sources from across the globe and across political persuasions
than a just on niche perspectives) makes me confident in its veracity. >> I've not seen the acronym 'MSM' before but thinking about it in context I guess it's likely to mean
--
Shaun.
Yep, that's what I was assuming Edmund meant.Thanks. I didn't see that he'd said it previously as I don't read his defecations.
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville
This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.
On 22/10/2020 4:30 am, larkim wrote:but your boyfriend's defecations into
On Wednesday, 21 October 2020 at 08:20:49 UTC+1, ~misfit~ wrote:
On 20/10/2020 11:28 pm, larkim wrote:
On Monday, 19 October 2020 at 23:53:20 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:Main Stream Media?
On 10/19/20 11:50 PM, geoff wrote:I said I wouldn't respond but just to note the first person to raise 97% on this
On 20/10/2020 4:25 am, Edmund wrote:OK then YOU show us where that 97% comes from, the original question and
NOT TRUE, FAKE NEWS, LOCK 'EM UP !
Yes you said that and that is NOT TRUE. Hence I said look it up ( that
97% myth )
Of course you don't look it up and keep repeating this nonsense, I know.
Denial of the facts accepted by the vast majority of people with
expertise who ought to know.
Ring a bell ?
geoff
answers.
Let me guess, you cannot produce it either :-)
Rings a bell? Of course not.
Edmund
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
thread was you! I'll be honest, it's not a number I was previously specifically
aware of or am wedded to in any way!
If you want to get excited about proving whether it's 82%, 97%, 99% (or even 49% or
lower), the feel free to fill your boots.
My only observation about the point was that there was a scientific consensus
that man made climate change is occuring. I linked to a reputable source >>> for that claim, and lining that up with what I have read in the press and on
other online news sources (or the "MSM" which for some reason seems to be
a derogatory term - the media has its faults, but it seems to me better to rely on
well regarded sources from across the globe and across political persuasions
than a just on niche perspectives) makes me confident in its veracity. >> I've not seen the acronym 'MSM' before but thinking about it in context I guess it's likely to mean
--
Shaun.
Yep, that's what I was assuming Edmund meant.Thanks. I didn't see that he'd said it previously as I don't read his defecations.
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville
This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.
On 22/10/2020 4:30 am, larkim wrote:hey cunthole. what happened to your
On Wednesday, 21 October 2020 at 08:20:49 UTC+1, ~misfit~ wrote:
On 20/10/2020 11:28 pm, larkim wrote:
On Monday, 19 October 2020 at 23:53:20 UTC+1, Edmund wrote:Main Stream Media?
On 10/19/20 11:50 PM, geoff wrote:I said I wouldn't respond but just to note the first person to raise 97% on this
On 20/10/2020 4:25 am, Edmund wrote:OK then YOU show us where that 97% comes from, the original question and
NOT TRUE, FAKE NEWS, LOCK 'EM UP !
Yes you said that and that is NOT TRUE. Hence I said look it up ( that
97% myth )
Of course you don't look it up and keep repeating this nonsense, I know.
Denial of the facts accepted by the vast majority of people with
expertise who ought to know.
Ring a bell ?
geoff
answers.
Let me guess, you cannot produce it either :-)
Rings a bell? Of course not.
Edmund
--
rCLThe further a society drift from the truth,
the more it will hate those who speak itrCY
George Orwell
thread was you! I'll be honest, it's not a number I was previously specifically
aware of or am wedded to in any way!
If you want to get excited about proving whether it's 82%, 97%, 99% (or even 49% or
lower), the feel free to fill your boots.
My only observation about the point was that there was a scientific consensus
that man made climate change is occuring. I linked to a reputable source >>> for that claim, and lining that up with what I have read in the press and on
other online news sources (or the "MSM" which for some reason seems to be
a derogatory term - the media has its faults, but it seems to me better to rely on
well regarded sources from across the globe and across political persuasions
than a just on niche perspectives) makes me confident in its veracity. >> I've not seen the acronym 'MSM' before but thinking about it in context I guess it's likely to mean
--
Shaun.
Yep, that's what I was assuming Edmund meant.Thanks. I didn't see that he'd said it previously as I don't read his defecations.
--
Shaun.
"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville
This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.
| Sysop: | Nitro |
|---|---|
| Location: | Portland, OR |
| Users: | 4 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 217:16:01 |
| Calls: | 139 |
| Files: | 752 |
| Messages: | 87,366 |
