"Green" policies are destroying this country

Mmm, i wonder where to start (and finish). Let's just leave it at every detail considering climate gate. Look it up! And to keep it topical and recent: Michael Mann's infamous 'hockeystick'. It is still in the latest IPCC report! Those people have no shame. All these anomalies have been stated by many scientists. But to have a debate with anyone immediately dragging in the oil lobby and at the same time ignoring the huge green one as if the scientific 'climate community' is neutral and isnt already heavily biased is a waste of time. And as far as consensus goes, one always has to say about what? Im pretty sure 100% agree that the climate is changing. So far so good. Do humans contribute to changes in the atmosphere via putting out Co2 and the greenhouse effect? Probably 97%. Is it significant? Now the number goes down. Is it harmful? Down again. And it depends on who you ask which also relies on people willing to stick their neck out, usually independent retired scientists like emeritus professors etc. Many still in the field don't take the risk as the punishment is severe and immediate.You should really read Steve koonin's 'unsettled' in which he uses actual IPCC data and states the many anomalies between the data and the summery. And then there are a multitude of books about the history of climate science which wouldnt interest you im sure..

It was discussed on here about the IPCC report being compiled by people who had carte-blanche to pick and choose parts from the many studies that went into making the report. In essence, it is written and compiled to state a wanted position

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a well-established greenhouse gas, and its role in Earth's climate system is supported by abundant scientific evidence. Numerous studies and observations demonstrate its impact on the greenhouse effect and global warming. CO2 molecules have the ability to absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, trapping heat within the Earth's atmosphere.

Firstly, laboratory experiments have confirmed CO2's greenhouse properties. Scientists have conducted controlled experiments that measure how CO2 absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation, providing clear evidence of its capacity to trap heat. This understanding is based on fundamental principles of physics and has been validated by empirical data.

Furthermore, direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentrations over time reveal a consistent increase due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation. Ice cores extracted from deep within Earth's polar regions provide a historical record spanning hundreds of thousands of years, showing a strong correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures.

Satellite observations have also shown that increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere lead to reduced heat escaping into space, thus enhancing the greenhouse effect. These measurements provide direct evidence of the heat-trapping capability of CO2.

Climate models, developed by scientists around the world, incorporate the physics of greenhouse gases, including CO2, and successfully simulate observed climate patterns when considering the rise in CO2 levels. These models project future warming trends consistent with the observed increase in atmospheric CO2, further strengthening the link between CO2 and global temperature changes.

Additionally, experiments conducted on other planets, such as Venus, further support the greenhouse properties of CO2. Venus' atmosphere is predominantly composed of CO2, resulting in a runaway greenhouse effect and surface temperatures hot enough to melt lead.

The collective body of scientific evidence, including laboratory experiments, observational data, historical records, satellite measurements, climate models, and extraterrestrial comparisons, all converge to confirm the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. This robust evidence underscores the urgency of addressing rising CO2 levels to mitigate the impacts of climate change on our planet.

Because you don’t understand something or cannot comprehend something is not evidence. Real world analysis is.

And here is yet another example of you believing stating something makes it so. Your argument was that a tiny proportion of a substance in a complex system could not have an impact. I can give you more examples if you like. There is one particular one. Makes up 0.00006% of the atmosphere. Yet when a human created gas caused depletion of the levels of that gas impacts on the absorption of solar radiation deadly to life was observed pretty quickly. And when an alternative was quickly deployed the depletion was largely halted and evidence of reversal is emerging. Heard about it by chance? Many people denied that was real too.

Here is what Michael Mann did

Nice. Now that the outcome has been replicated by others using different methods and the author has revised their own study with more complete data replicating the original result, I am sure that you will be able to find actual data that refutes the conclusion rather than just concluding that it is all wrong based on an error that has been corrected without changing the conclusion?

No. Don't be silly. I said they picked information out of the studies that make up the report. Did you mean to say "the overwhelming majority of studies do not in fact support the climate change consensus" as that doesn't sound right. Humans are the #1 reason for the increase in CO2.

@[Deleted User] was the one who stated how the report was compiled. I'll look back over the thread as the search function is total horseshit

Which is what Steve Koonin's book was all about. Then he was accused of cherry picking the data which was in fact a large chunk of the cake itself and came entirely from the IPCC reports. The fact that he really couldnt be accused of cherry picking (which they did anyway) and that he laid bare the many anomalies taking place within the IPCC, the difference between working group one and the summary for policy makers, the huge role of politics in the climate debate was unforgivable to many well up in the system. Too bad that mr Koonin is a well spoken and reasonable man making excellent arguments backed up by data. In other words: rather dangerous to those in power. They couldnt really pin him down on anything so now they hope nobody will read the book and this thing just might go away. Too much attention to it might lead to more people getting interested which is a big nono. It might put the lid on the scare story. But it is not working. The genie is out of the bottle.

Edit: it also happens that 'unsettled' is a really well written and presented book which contains a nice balance between words and graphics without being simplistic. Plus, he is someone with real expertise.One by one the deck of cards put forward by those compiling the IPCC summary are taken down. The brilliance lies in the fact that he uses the IPCCs own data to do it. It must've made many green agenda proponents very angry and upset. Talking about a slap in the face!

One should really watch the many presentations on the likes of Youtube.

The Greens are usually very reluctant to get rid of the garbage. They just repackage, recycle, adjust, hide, and their favourite word 'recalibrate' to hang on to their models of how the world should look like.

One should never forget how Michael Mann not only lied but also didnt let anyone near his data which is bizarre for a scientist and aggressively went after each and everyone who questioned his method and organized his pals into a wolfpack. This because he knew fine well that he was quilty of fraud just like the climate gate evidence showed. When he was finally forced to submit the data everyone could see the crime he committed. Then his pals gathered around and manipulated the in and outputs once again to make his hockeystick a tad more presentable. Then a little later as they hoped everybody would have forgotten they dared to repatriate him claiming he only made some slight errors but that it basically held up. See, others say so! These guys double down on every error. Their basics are flawed (mainly the assumed but never proven high sensitivity rate of the atmosphere to levels of Co2) and always produce the same outcome. It is always a win win situation and they have a religious faith in their icons/models. They are untrustworthy to say the least and masters of manipulation. They have an aim and their eye is on the prize. There is a lot at stake. Jobs, positions, money, prestige. They cannot afford to deviate. More and more people are starting to suspect foul play. And like the Catholic church and sex abuse scandals they can only hide the bodies so far and silence the infidels.

And, giving their faith i can't really blame them. But i DO blame the media for going along and perpetuating falsehoods. The mushrooming truthsquad sections and their factcheckers are ready to go after the 'mis/disinformation'. Like a modern inquisition they put labels on people and brush them with a certain colour. They are by far the dumbest people around.'Verify', indeed!

You read neither.

But it has been replicated using different methods. You can continue to ignore and shout "but Mann". That however does not change that the original conclusions have subsequently been proven to be correct even if the original methods were not.

Diesel is often considered better than petrol in certain contexts due to a few key advantages. Firstly, diesel engines tend to have higher fuel efficiency, allowing vehicles to travel farther on the same amount of fuel compared to petrol engines. Secondly, diesel has a higher energy density, meaning it contains more energy per unit of volume, resulting in increased power output and torque. Lastly, diesel fuel emits lower levels of CO2 compared to petrol, contributing to reduced greenhouse gas emissions and potentially lower environmental impact in terms of climate change. However, it's important to note that diesel also has its drawbacks, such as higher particulate matter emissions, which can have adverse effects on air quality and human health. The overall preference for diesel or petrol depends on the specific requirements, regulations, and priorities of each situation.

Que?

More capacity resulting in a higher proportion of energy being supplied by renewables is a negative argument against renewables somehow.

And renewable s are getting cheaper all the time.