Global warming

A narrative is being set, there is no time for facts.

I almost feel sorry for the likes of George Lee tbh. He would have had his doomster charts and best panicky voice ready for the first couple of hot days this summer telling us the end is nigh unless we all pay more taxes and here we are with an absolutely crap summer spoiling his moment of glory. Bless em..

Back in the 90's we were told in school all about the hole in the Ozon Layer. If we didnt stop using aerosols then the hole would get bigger and we would all burn to death. They told us that it will never get better but if we stop NOW, then hopefully it wont get worse. People predicted that it would be totally eradicated by the year 2000.

The hole in the ozon layer is currently repairing itself. It is predicted to be back to 1980's level within the next couple of decades.

People use more aerosols now than they did in the 90's. We are told there is far more air pollution also.

If you light a coal fire, it will have no effect on global warming.

If a cow farts, it will not cause global warming.

If you drive your car you will not destroy the planet.


Car congestion and air pollution do however effect peoples health. It can affect peoples lungs. It is in all of our interests to reduce pollution. But trying to tax it away only makes certain people richer.

And for the love of god will people stop saying "this never happened in all of time" when we only have 100 years of records.

We have 0.0000022% of data relating to climate on this planet. Everything else is guess work. It is better than guess work to be fair but it suffers from confirmation bias.

CFC's were replaced by Hydrofluorocarbons and Hydrochlorofluorocarbons. Both were said to be "not as bad for the Ozone" but it was pointed out that they werent perfect. Again, we use more aerosols now than back in the 90's. Look at brands and types. There are wider selections and the demand has increased.

So while it is said that they are "safer" we use more.

It is like saying that you wont drink a Vodka and coke but instead you will have 10 low alcohol beers. The volume of each is less but the overall is not.

Also a side note: When someone claims that someone shouldnt be listened to, it means that they are the ones we should ignore. When you want to stop a conversation it is the opposite of science. The scientific community once believed the atom was the smallest particle. Science is only what the majority of political scientists at any one time, believe. For instance science one used leaches to cure people of cancer. They used CBT!! Science should ALWAYS be questioned.

So when someone once said "the atom isnt the smallest particle". Was that them saying either a) you know to be untrue or b) you didn't bother to find out if they are untrue or not because they support the agenda you are trying to push for whatever reason.

Or is it just the fact that other opinions exist outside your personal thoughts?

Its not a conspiracy theory to say that if you are a prominent scientist who goes against the norm, you will not be awarded funding and you will be ostracized for questioning a money magnet. How many Oil companies are struggling as a result of our change to cleaner fuels?