COP26 progress or same old

[ey_tony]

I think your answer was fair up until this point here which youve added and is the crux of nay sayers who claim its all part of a natural process, one we humans cant influence. A cycle going back millions of years etc etc.

Are you one of the flat-earthers who believes that only anthropogenic contribution is the cause of the current climatic changes we are seeing today?
If that is the case then it's pointless arguing as there are numerous factors which need to be considered and not just one single factor which the majority of flat-earthers have seized upon. You simply can't discount solar radiation, volcanism and so on. They all contribute to

The geological record shows full well how volatile and wildly the climate has changed since the planet's surface first cooled to below 100 degC at least 3.6 billion years ago.
The problem is that many of the scientific papers bend the facts to fit with what they are trying to prove, as in the case of Mann etc al being a perfect example of selective data manipulation. There are more holes in his work than a cullender but it suits the AGW lobby's narative.

It might fool you and other who know no different but not someone who understands what has happened. The problem is that there are MANY eminent scientists who disagree with many of the papers being thrown around like confetti. They know they are flawed but they also know that if they publicly challenge the findings, they will be marginalised and heir careers will be effectively over, which if you search enough you will find to be true.

The GW mafia has it sewn up. It's big business all the way and just as corrupt as the tobacco and oil companies.

The thing is I want to see large reductions in the pollution going into our atmosphere and biosphere as much as the next person as I want my grandchildren to have decent lives but what I don 't want is for them to be screwed by academics in the pockets of big businesses and governments in the process.

 

[Jacob]

Are you one of the flat-earthers who believes that only anthropogenic contribution is the cause of the current climatic changes we are seeing today?
If that is the case then it's pointless arguing as there are numerous factors which need to be considered and not just one single factor which the majority of flat-earthers have seized upon. You simply can't discount solar radiation, volcanism and so on. They all contribute to

The geological record shows full well how volatile and wildly the climate has changed since the planet's surface first cooled to below 100 degC at least 3.6 billion years ago.
The problem is that many of the scientific papers bend the facts to fit with what they are trying to prove, as in the case of Mann etc al being a perfect example of selective data manipulation.There are more holes in his work than a cullender but it suits the AGW lobby's narative.

You haven't read up on the Mann "controversy" and what you are saying is completely untrue

It might fool you and other who know no different but not someone who understands what has happened. The problem is that there are MANY eminent scientists who disagree with many of the papers being thrown around like confetti. They know they are flawed but they also know that if they publicly challenge the findings, they will be marginalised and heir careers will be effectively over, which if you search enough you will find to be true.

The GW mafia has it sewn up. It's big business all the way and just as corrupt as the tobacco and oil companies.

The thing is I want to see large reductions in the pollution going into our atmosphere and biosphere as much as the next person as I want my grandchildren to have decent lives but what I don 't want is for them to be screwed by academics in the pockets of big businesses and governments in the process.

So you are back to childish notions that it's all a big cover up and conspiracy and you haven't got anything to say which could prove this?
"They also know that if they publicly challenge the findings, they will be marginalised and their careers will be effectively over." Quite possible I suppose - like flat earthers, anti vaxxers, creationists - it doesn't fit the science and is almost certainly discreditable nonsense. Sack them!
PS and also dangerous if action is deferred.

 

[PUtcvNqa]

It might fool you and other who know no different but not someone who understands what has happened. The problem is that there are MANY eminent scientists who disagree with many of the papers being thrown around like confetti. They know they are flawed but they also know that if they publicly challenge the findings, they will be marginalised and heir careers will be effectively over, which if you search enough you will find to be true.

Always seems to be the crackpots that have access to this sort of secret info regardless of the subject matter

 

[Istrickl]

"Genius abhors consensus because when consensus is reached, thinking stops."

Einstein...

 

[ey_tony]

You haven't read up on the Mann "controversy" and what you are saying is completely untrue
So you are back to childish notions that it's all a big cover up and conspiracy and you haven't got anything to say which could prove this?
"They also know that if they publicly challenge the findings, they will be marginalised and their careers will be effectively over." Quite possible I suppose - like flat earthers, anti vaxxers, creationists - it doesn't fit the science and is almost certainly discreditable nonsense.

Yeah, yeah, yeah! Next you'll be telling me that you can only have one right angle in a triangle.

 

[Jacob]

"Genius abhors consensus because when consensus is reached, thinking stops."

Einstein...

It hasn't stopped on this issue. Research is ongoing, worldwide. Nobody actually wants it to be true, in spite of the bonkers conspiracy theories.
There was a consensus on Newtonian physics but did it stop the thinking which led to relativity? Not even delayed it really - classical mechanics remains unchanged for normal purposes but was an essential step to relativity. It's all here in Wikipedia, which is itself a dubious disseminator of misinformation, according to the conspiracy nutters.

 

[Jacob]

Yeah, yeah, yeah! Next you'll be telling me that you can only have one right angle in a triangle.

1 in Euclidean up to 3 in spherical geometry.

 

[John Brown]

Are you one of the flat-earthers who believes that only anthropogenic contribution is the cause of the current climatic changes we are seeing today?
If that is the case then it's pointless arguing as there are numerous factors which need to be considered and not just one single factor which the majority of flat-earthers have seized upon. You simply can't discount solar radiation, volcanism and so on. They all contribute to

The geological record shows full well how volatile and wildly the climate has changed since the planet's surface first cooled to below 100 degC at least 3.6 billion years ago.
The problem is that many of the scientific papers bend the facts to fit with what they are trying to prove, as in the case of Mann etc al being a perfect example of selective data manipulation. There are more holes in his work than a cullender but it suits the AGW lobby's narative.

It might fool you and other who know no different but not someone who understands what has happened. The problem is that there are MANY eminent scientists who disagree with many of the papers being thrown around like confetti. They know they are flawed but they also know that if they publicly challenge the findings, they will be marginalised and heir careers will be effectively over, which if you search enough you will find to be true.

The GW mafia has it sewn up. It's big business all the way and just as corrupt as the tobacco and oil companies.

The thing is I want to see large reductions in the pollution going into our atmosphere and biosphere as much as the next person as I want my grandchildren to have decent lives but what I don 't want is for them to be screwed by academics in the pockets of big businesses and governments in the process.

Brilliant. So now you're trying to brand people who don't accept your pet conspiracy theory as flat-earthers.
I have better things to do than reading such nonsense.

 

[ey_tony]

Brilliant. So now you're trying to brand people who don't accept your pet conspiracy theory as flat-earthers.
I have better things to do than reading such nonsense.

I find it strange that the indoctrinated are so easily whipped up into mass hysteria and offended when their world and what they believe in is questioned.

If it wasn't for people questioning beliefs and science, then we'd still be back in the 18th Century with regard to medicine and physics and most of us would still be creationists.

 

[Jacob]

I find it strange that the indoctrinated are so easily whipped up into mass hysteria and offended when their world and what they believe in is questioned.

If it wasn't for people questioning beliefs and science, then we'd still be back in the 18th Century with regard to medicine and physics and most of us would still be creationists.

Questioning; good. Getting the wrong answers; bad.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

https://woolly-macadamia-8ce.notion...ng-the-facts-382d8ff481fa4c6eaf3925f029c3f681
https://www.researchgate.net/public...of_the_Greenhouse_Effect_Global_Warming_dogma
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/10/13/inconvenient-tornado-data-disappears/

https://electroverse.net/newly-publ...-tears-global-warming-and-the-ipcc-to-shreds/
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

 

[Ozi]

I'm not interested in joining the argument, just want to say that there is a lot of progress being made that people just don't here about. I work for a major car manufacturer, I won't name them they don't like us to. I'm not pretending their green but they are seriously trying to make improvements. We have targets on the whole life cycle to reduce pollution in all forms, water and energy consumption. Since 2013 the power consumed from the grid on production lines has been cut by 79%, mainly by installing renewable generation recovering heat and reducing waste, that's full life cycle it includes the consequences of manufacturing the solar and wind systems. Other targets are also making good progress.

Companies don't publish this sort of thing and if you read the reactions to the article published by Volvo showing the carbon balance for one of their electric vehicles you will know why. They made huge improvements but pointed out that if Europe doesn't clean up it's power generation there is only so much that can be achieved by users. The reactions can best be summed up as "See it's all rubbish, knew they were lying I will keep driving my Diesel".

You still hear that "turbine blades can't be recycled" applied to early GRP blades, modern ones are more like an aircraft wing but naysayers jump on any fact that fits there story and never look to see if problems are getting fixed - any many are.

I know the world is still burning coal etc. etc. but the speed of change depends on consumers as much as manufacturers - all of us. Change something you do, even if it's small, change your light bulbs, plan a bit better and avoid two trips into town when it can be one, save your self some money in the process, all the little things add up and help influence attitudes.

Rant over i'll go back to muttering in my corner.

 

[Jacob]

https://woolly-macadamia-8ce.notion...ng-the-facts-382d8ff481fa4c6eaf3925f029c3f681
https://www.researchgate.net/public...of_the_Greenhouse_Effect_Global_Warming_dogma
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/10/13/inconvenient-tornado-data-disappears/

https://electroverse.net/newly-publ...-tears-global-warming-and-the-ipcc-to-shreds/
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

We know it's out there Phil but it's still b.....x!

 

[Jacob]

...

Rant over i'll go back to muttering in my corner.

No keep muttering and ranting!
Monbiot is saying something similar - govt and business won't do it but people power might. After the failure of Cop26, there is only one last hope for our survival | George Monbiot

 

[ey_tony]

Questioning good - getting the answers wrong bad.

Well you can show me where I'm wrong when you Zoom me and discuss the nuances in real time and put me right. Just think as your knowledge has no bounds, you'll have your bragging rights when I post the resultant video on here and YouTube.

 

[John Brown]

https://woolly-macadamia-8ce.notion...ng-the-facts-382d8ff481fa4c6eaf3925f029c3f681
https://www.researchgate.net/public...of_the_Greenhouse_Effect_Global_Warming_dogma
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/10/13/inconvenient-tornado-data-disappears/

https://electroverse.net/newly-publ...-tears-global-warming-and-the-ipcc-to-shreds/
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

Thanks, Phill. Now why ey_tony couldn't have posted links like these is beyond me.
I will take a look.

 

[Jacob]

Well you can show me where I'm wrong when you Zoom me and discuss the nuances in real time and put me right. Just think as your knowledge has no bounds, you'll have your bragging rights when I post the resultant video on here and YouTube.

No - you have to show us where and how/why they are wrong. You have completely failed on this so far. You don't even seem to be up to date - still muttering about Mann and the hockey stick - that was 12 years ago.
Do some revision. This is a good place to start: Hockey stick graph - Wikipedia

 

[TRITON]

Are you one of the flat-earthers who believes that only anthropogenic contribution is the cause of the current climatic changes we are seeing today?
If that is the case then it's pointless arguing as there are numerous factors which need to be considered and not just one single factor which the majority of flat-earthers have seized upon. You simply can't discount solar radiation, volcanism and so on. They all contribute to

The geological record shows full well how volatile and wildly the climate has changed since the planet's surface first cooled to below 100 degC at least 3.6 billion years ago.
The problem is that many of the scientific papers bend the facts to fit with what they are trying to prove, as in the case of Mann etc al being a perfect example of selective data manipulation. There are more holes in his work than a cullender but it suits the AGW lobby's narative.

It might fool you and other who know no different but not someone who understands what has happened. The problem is that there are MANY eminent scientists who disagree with many of the papers being thrown around like confetti. They know they are flawed but they also know that if they publicly challenge the findings, they will be marginalised and heir careers will be effectively over, which if you search enough you will find to be true.

The GW mafia has it sewn up. It's big business all the way and just as corrupt as the tobacco and oil companies.

The thing is I want to see large reductions in the pollution going into our atmosphere and biosphere as much as the next person as I want my grandchildren to have decent lives but what I don 't want is for them to be screwed by academics in the pockets of big businesses and governments in the process.

Thats all well and good Tony, but the real contentious issue many of us face here on UKworkshop is how do you stand on the Sawbench versus the Tracksaw question ?

 

[Jacob]

Thats all well and good Tony, but the real contentious issue many of us face here on UKworkshop is how do you stand on the Sawbench versus the Tracksaw question ?

Perhaps divert him into a sharpening thread? That could keep him busy.

 

[ey_tony]

Thats all well and good Tony, but the real contentious issue many of us face here on UKworkshop is how do you stand on the Sawbench versus the Tracksaw question ?

Well if it had been prior to my illness around 7 years ago I would have argued why does one need either? I learned my woodwork skills through my time as an organ builder so I used to do and cut everything by hand. Looking back now, I do wonder why but I enjoyed using hand tools!

The only electric tools I had were an electric drill and a 1/4" router. I bought a used radial arm saw once but it's still in the corner unused but after becoming ill I did buy a planer, a saw bench, mitre saw and lots of electrical goodies which allowed my to continue with woodworking which would have been beyond me had I not bought the tools.

The consensus of the medical experts around September/October 2014 was that I would be very lucky to even see that Christmas, let alone the new year.
It was touch and go and after a blood clot on my lung and some weeks later followed by pneumonia, I proved the experts wrong and I'm still here today.

The only person who disagreed with the top physicians dealing with me was my own GP who disagreed with their views and guess who was right so I never automatically assume that experts are always right!