Greta Thumberg Schools UN on Extinction

[reloader54]

World wide Airplane use, only produces 2% of all C02 emissions.

RightWing talking points that people should not fly to climate meetings...

The figures are averages taking into account which aircraft models are typically used on flight routes, and the estimated occupancy of seats on board those planes. The figures include only the CO2 generated by burning jet fuel, not any emissions embedded in the construction of the plane or any other greenhouse gases that might be produced, such as water vapour.

 

[mchughcb]

World wide Airplane use, only produces 2% of all C02 emissions.

RightWing talking points that people should not fly to climate meetings...

Could you give me an idea of what the cost per MWh is going to the in the UK asuming renewable energy by 2030 excluding transport?

 

[mchughcb]

The figures are averages taking into account which aircraft models are typically used on flight routes, and the estimated occupancy of seats on board those planes. The figures include only the CO2 generated by burning jet fuel, not any emissions embedded in the construction of the plane or any other greenhouse gases that might be produced, such as water vapour.

Ah water vapour, is that like clouds and stuff that is contributing to global cooling?

 

[mchughcb]

that has to change on a public individual level too, a small portion of my life involves areas where the general public are allowed access, the amount of rubbish, nappies, plastics, emptying the cars ashtrays wherever they happen to be parked, and even human excrement on footpaths, is absolutely astounding given they are quite likely among the first to complain if it were their property. I walk my estate after a shoot and apart from a peg to be collected until next time and perhaps the odd feather you wouldn't know it had happened. so who is it that needs educating? . and who has no respect for the countryside, certainly not shooting folk

Im all for picking up your crap , doing your crap in the crapper, but this crap about manmade CO2 causing climate change has to be avoided at all costs.

 

[NOTSHARP]

Steve.

 

[reloader54]

Ah water vapour, is that like clouds and stuff that is contributing to global cooling?

yes the uk has a terrible record for water vapour, we're a nation of tea drinkers and the kettles always on, people confirm this constantly.
our gubment seem to spout a lot of hot air too, I'm sure that's not helping.

 

[User00035]

Report here of UK scientists developing a hydrogen-fueled jet engine that could make hypersonic air travel possible in tens years, reducing London to Sydney travel time to 4 hours.

New hypersonic engine poised to cut London-Sydney flight times to just four hours by 2030s

This neatly illustrates the contradiction between supposedly palliative technology and the way it encourages rather than alleviates human expansion: on the one hand far "greener" flying than is possible with current technology but at the same time far more air travel made possible for far more people in a world reduced in size to a frightening degree.
I can't see a net benefit either to the planet or human beings.

 

[reloader54]

Im all for picking up your crap , doing your crap in the crapper, but this crap about manmade CO2 causing climate change has to be avoided at all costs.

the point I was making, is a great number of people chanting the "save the planet" mantra are oblivious to their contribution to its perceived demise, It's always someone else's fault.

according to some it's all going to be gone to sh1t in 12 years time, although this often quoted shorter or longer, depending if there's a smashing boat ride to be had or a chance to rant nonsense at world leaders under the umbrella of a mental instability.
and cheered on by the great lost people who desperately want to "become" part of something,,, anything. "hurrah for the new messiah, pass the superglue"

 

[kenbro]

I agree with a great deal that's been written on this subject but to me, the raft of problems we face are, in the main caused by one thing, overpopulation. There are too many people and what's the point in taking all these measures when you read that in a few years time the population will have grown enormously.
It's the same as when they built a new by-pass not far from me in the seventies because of traffic congestion, it solved the problem for a few years, now it's worse than it ever was.
Perhaps it's time people thought about limiting how many children they have, those who have four of five children certainly aren't helping their future?

Stop benefits for any more than 2 children.
Ken.

 

[old keeper]

Stop benefits for any more than 2 children.
Ken.

I believe the Chinese would only allow benefit for one child some years ago. That slowed things down although I think they've taken the brake off now!

 

[Apthorpe]

It's crazy for government policy to be for the population to increase. The only reason we need a growing population is to fund the Ponzi-scheme promises, bribes, and white elephants of governments. The policy for nearly all nations should be to reduce their population by 35% over time. This can easily be achieved by stopping open-door immigration and scrapping child benefits, and other subsidies for procreation.

 

[Apthorpe]

Separately, I have written to Extinction Rebellion asking how it is possible to be zero-carbon, whether their founders are and asking whether we should be protesting outside and boycotting the country's largest CO2 emitter - the NHS. If they reply, I'll let you know.

 

[reloader54]

 

[reloader54]

 

[mchughcb]

Great presentation and a few home truths there. Every government requires miners to restore land yet there are no restoration requirements for cities and a pittance for farming in comparison.

 

[Alantoo]

I was sent this yesterday, not saying what's right or wrong, but interesting read.

The extinction of reason | MelaniePhillips.com

That's about the only sensible article I've read on the issue. The replacement of reason with emotion is one of the real issues in the wider environmental debate.

I doesn't read as a particularly reasonable article to me.

Follow the money.

I think it defies reason that Melanie Philips claims that it is the academic research grant awarding bodies that have created and skewed the climate change research by only giving grants to support an AGW agenda. Why would they? What is in it for them? How were they coordinated worldwide? Why no whistle blowers?

Even were that true, there is nothing to stop the the Fossil Fuel industry from funding peer reviewed climate research which counters it.

The disparity of resources between the trillions involved in the industry that underpins every other industry of the world; and the relative pittance available for independent academic research shows her contention to be risible.

If there were any scientists who could show that Climate Change was not being influenced by man, there would certainly not be any difficulty in accessing funding for their research from the oil industry.

Instead we get the smear campaigners like Melanie Philips.

She misrepresents the BBC briefing memo "The BBC has decided there can be no challenge to “climate change” theory" but fails to say that the advice to staff was given after OFCOM had ruled that the BBC were in breach of broadcasting rules by not challenging sufficiently the false claims made by Climate Change denier Nigel Lawson.

Exclusive: BBC issues internal guidance on how to report climate change

The BBC, one of the world’s largest and most respected news organisations, has issued formal guidance to its journalists on how to report climate change.

www.carbonbrief.org

Carbon brief organisation do openly declare who funds them I notice...

Who has funded the cyber attacks on the university Climate Science departments' servers timed to disrupt and give false doubt before each climate international convention? Why have there never been any convictions of the hackers? Who funds all the AGW deniers? Who funds Melanie Philips? Who funds Nigel Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation.

It doesn't take much reasoning to see in whose interests denial of Climate Change would be.

Alan

 

[dartmoordog]

How any sane minded person can be taken in by this ridiculous hype is well beyond me.

 

[User00025]

Personally it does rather give me hope that kids of today are worried about their future. Whether or not you agree with climate changer per se, the amount of pollution that man has caused over the last 50 odd years can only be badly damaging our environment. I think the reason that many of us find the whole subject disturbing is because actually it's bloody scary.

Spend five minutes walking along any part of your stalking grounds and you will have a quite a collection of litter. Walk along any beach and you will have a large collection. And look how plastics have taken over with just about everything we buy now covered in plastic.

Something has to change and has to change very fast. And that requires a change in political will.

Unfortunately most of it put there by youngsters not responsible adults. Not too many normal adults eat McDonalds but along any lane you can find their wrappings. If she had been my sister spoken to adults like that, my mother would have given her a good slap and told her "Respect your elders".

 

[Jon Smith]

I doesn't read as a particularly reasonable article to me.

Follow the money.

I think it defies reason that Melanie Philips claims that it is the academic research grant awarding bodies that have created and skewed the climate change research by only giving grants to support an AGW agenda. Why would they? What is in it for them? How were they coordinated worldwide? Why no whistle blowers? Obviously forgetting climategate etc

Even were that true, there is nothing to stop the the Fossil Fuel industry from funding peer reviewed climate research which counters it. Very evident that socialist funding panels fund what narrative they need to.

The disparity of resources between the trillions involved in the industry that underpins every other industry of the world; and the relative pittance available for independent academic research shows her contention to be risible. Nahh the billions given to a small number of questionable researchers into climate would be 'risable'.

If there were any scientists who could show that Climate Change was not being influenced by man, there would certainly not be any difficulty in accessing funding for their research from the oil industry. That is total bollox most real scientists have spoken out against the wasrmistas, what THEY see is funding cut and loss of tenure as a result of trying to show the truth.

Instead we get the smear campaigners like Melanie Philips. Or this amateur hit job by alantoo

She misrepresents the BBC briefing memo "The BBC has decided there can be no challenge to “climate change” theory" but fails to say that the advice to staff was given after OFCOM had ruled that the BBC were in breach of broadcasting rules by not challenging sufficiently the false claims made by Climate Change denier Nigel Lawson. bbc are seriously the last to rely upon for any evidence - they are charlatans - see 28gate Full List of Participants to the BBC CMEP Seminar on 26 January 2006

It doesn't take much reasoning to see in whose interests denial of Climate Change would be.
Some cannot see what a tax scam globull warming is, they have their eyes closed to the impending socialism which, true to form, will kill millions again.

Alan

BREAKING: The 'secret' list of the BBC 28 is now public – let's call it 'TwentyEightGate'

UPDATES ARE CONTINUOUSLY BEING ADDED at the end of this story. Check below. WUWT readers may recall this post last week: The Secret 28 Who Made BBC ‘Green’ Will Not Be Named Posted on November 10, …

wattsupwiththat.com

 

[reloader54]

this latest infantile uprising is not a new phenomena, greenpeace did it already,