Trumps recent speech at Davos

robs ss said:
Those climate activists/doomsayers/etc seem, as a group, to be unable (or unwilling) to separate two fundamental issues:
1. Climate Change - yes, it is changing and always will, sometimes not for the better (now?), and
2. Man's Affect On The Environment - after many years of close examination of various arguments I have not seen sound scientific proof that man is a measurable cause of these changes. Yes, we should stop large scale forest clearing and reduce our pollution (I don't believe CO2 is a pollutant, by the way) stop our large scale dependance on and careless disposal of plastics and generally demonstrate good stewardship. In some respects I think it is the utmost in arrogance to suggest we are mighty enough to cause substantive change in our environment.
Click to expand...
With all due respect to you Rob, it is you who is showing arrogance is saying CO2 is not a pollutant and we are the ones causing changes in our environment. GBs own coal fired power stations were sending acidic fumes across the continent to Sweden, which in turn killed their trees and caused deforestation right up to the 1990s. After the 1962/3 winter the London smog returned resulting in the CleanAir Act, preventing coal being burned as a domestic fuel in thousands of homes, L Angles and else where gets heavy traffic jams causing smog, the Chinese burn more coal now than ever before causing ....... you can see where I'm going, it has ALL been in the news, which leads me to ask the question, where have you been hiding? You just seem to walk around in life in blissful ignorance!!!
 
Last edited:
robs ss said:
Those climate activists/doomsayers/etc seem, as a group, to be unable (or unwilling) to separate two fundamental issues:
1. Climate Change - yes, it is changing and always will, sometimes not for the better (now?), and
2. Man's Affect On The Environment - after many years of close examination of various arguments I have not seen sound scientific proof that man is a measurable cause of these changes. Yes, we should stop large scale forest clearing and reduce our pollution (I don't believe CO2 is a pollutant, by the way) stop our large scale dependance on and careless disposal of plastics and generally demonstrate good stewardship. In some respects I think it is the utmost in arrogance to suggest we are mighty enough to cause substantive change in our environment.
Click to expand...
Rob,
I would certainly not be characterised as a doomsayer or a climate activist (I have several petrol vehicles, numerous electrical appliances - more than I really need...etc) and I agree that CO2 is not a pollutant ...BUT... It has been proved that increased CO2 levels lead directly to an increase in temperature in the areas containing high levels - don’t ask me how, the CO2 has been shown to hold more heat - increased temperatures definitely leads to a change in environmental conditions and climate with certain species unable to cope with a small increase in temperature dying out, you could ascribe this to natural evolution. Mankind’s activities lead to increase in CO2, this leads to increase in temp and ultimately climate change. This is without any other form of pollution from mans activities
 
I once showed one of my bosses what happens when you put a block of dry ice into a muffle furnace at 1400 deg. C - do YOU know what happens ? - He did not know until he saw it. It is not what you might think. Carbon dioxide is an excellent insulator.
 
JimC said:
Just what is in it for you to deny scientific evidence and promote anti-progression?

Are you one of the flat earthers? Do you consider the postulate of the earth revolving around the sun as blasphemy?
Click to expand...
Jim
I think at this point we need invoke the phrase “I think we should respectfully agree to disagree” and move on to other areas. In your own constitution, the right to free speech allows you to vehemently disagree with what someone might say but defend their right to say it.
 
Bernhard said:
With all due respect to you Rob, it is you who is showing arrogance is saying CO2 is not a pollutant and we are the ones causing changes in our environment. GBs own coal fired power stations were sending acidic fumes across the continent to Sweden, which in turn killed their trees and caused deforestation right up to the 1990s. After the 1962/3 winter the London smog returned resulting in the CleanAir Act, preventing coal being burned as a domestic fuel in thousands of homes, L Angles and else where gets heavy traffic jams causing smog, the Chinese burn more coal now than ever before causing ....... you can see where I'm going, it has ALL been in the news, which leads me to ask the question, where have you been hiding? You just seem to walk around in life in blissful ignorance!!!
Click to expand...
So.. my ignorance must have blinded me a to how CO2 from GB power stations turned into “acidic fumes”. Sounds like another pollutant may be the issue here. All your points seem to address dirty pollution, not CO2.
Also, saying it’s “ALL been in the news” doesn’t hold much credibility either, to me at least.
 
robs ss said:
So.. my ignorance must have blinded me a to how CO2 from GB power stations turned into “acidic fumes”. Sounds like another pollutant may be the issue here. All your points seem to address dirty pollution, not CO2.
Also, saying it’s “ALL been in the news” doesn’t hold much credibility either, to me at least.
Click to expand...
Well great, you just keep on telling yourself that, next time you cannot breath outside, acid rain , acidic fumes and all the other mixtures with air are ALL by product of burning millions of tons of coal every week at said coal fired power stations, the affected countries were able to trace it back to the source by the earths winds tracked/traced by satellite. In my area alone, there used to be 34 deep coal mines, all producing about 15,000 tons of coal, give or take, per week, - exactly how much CO2 and all the other pollutants it produced I have no idea, but the clue is - a lot, if you ever saw the giant size of several power station chimneys together, which according to you, don't exist in your world. You sure are on a different planet IMO.
 
Bernhard said:
Well great, you just keep on telling yourself that, next time you cannot breath outside, acid rain , acidic fumes and all the other mixtures with air are ALL by product of burning millions of tons of coal every week at said coal fired power stations, the affected countries were able to trace it back to the source by the earths winds tracked/traced by satellite. In my area alone, there used to be 34 deep coal mines, all producing about 15,000 tons of coal, give or take, per week, - exactly how much CO2 and all the other pollutants it produced I have no idea, but the clue is - a lot, if you ever saw the giant size of several power station chimneys together, which according to you, don't exist in your world. You sure are on a different planet IMO.
Click to expand...
Yes - I see them too on this same planet earth and, if you actually read what I have said, I agree with you about the need to stop polluting.
CO2 does not cause the symptoms you have described though.
 
Sulphur in coal causes acid rain:

Sulphur plus oxygen plus sunlight = SO2, or sulphur dioxide, mixed with rain, it becomes sulphuric acid.

Sulphur can be scrubbed in the stacks of powerplants.

Slick
 
Last edited:
Eljahara said:
Jim
I think at this point we need invoke the phrase “I think we should respectfully agree to disagree” and move on to other areas. In your own constitution, the right to free speech allows you to vehemently disagree with what someone might say but defend their right to say it.
Click to expand...


Another quote might be more appropriate.

“If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen”.

The right to free speech pertains to me, too.
 
texasSlick said:
Sulphur in coal causes acid rain:

Sulphur plus oxygen plus sunlight = SO2, or sulphur dioxide, mixed with rain, it becomes sulphuric acid.

Sulphur can be scrubbed in the stacks of powerplants.

Slick
Click to expand...

No coal, no sulphur. Sun, no sulphur. Wind, no sulphur

Once upon a time kerosene light was essentially the only lighting used, along with the attendant soot.
 
Last edited:
JimC said:
No coal, no sulphur. Sun, no sulphur. Wind, no sulphur
Click to expand...
Jim
With both those solutions you need batteries to ensure continuity of supply.
Mining, manufacture and disposal are significant issues - not as environmentally friendly if you take these into consideration.
 
robs ss said:
Jim
With both those solutions you need batteries to ensure continuity of supply.
Mining, manufacture and disposal are significant issues - not as environmentally friendly if you take these into consideration.
Click to expand...

That is the status today. Twenty years hence will be an entirely different world as for storing energy.You are confining your thinking to present day technology. Somewhat like 20 years ago personal computers had no more than 512 mb of ram.
 
xbacksideslider said:
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions


50 years of predictions . . .
Click to expand...

"Oil giant ExxonMobil has been one of CEI's top funders, contributing at least $2.1 million dollars since 1997. Donors trust has donated over $4 million to CEI as of 2013. DT has been described as the "dark money ATM of the conservative movement" for its ability to take in funds from anonymous donors and distribute them to recipient organizations"

Try again.
 
NPeteN said:
"Oil giant ExxonMobil has been one of CEI's top funders, contributing at least $2.1 million dollars since 1997. Donors trust has donated over $4 million to CEI as of 2013. DT has been described as the "dark money ATM of the conservative movement" for its ability to take in funds from anonymous donors and distribute them to recipient organizations"

Try again.
Click to expand...

I doubt backslider sees anything inappropriate with what you described.
 
JimC said:
That is the status today. Twenty years hence will be an entirely different world as for storing energy.You are confining your thinking to present day technology.
Click to expand...
Maybe so....
Maybe not...
 
robs ss said:
Yes - I see them too on this same planet earth and, if you actually read what I have said, I agree with you about the need to stop polluting.
CO2 does not cause the symptoms you have described though.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your reply Texaslick - it stands to reason that sulphur acid rain in the atmosphere if it kills trees, it will kill plants- unless there are plants that survive on this- also it will damage the paintwork of any plane that attempts to fly through a cloud of it, plus damage any motorcycle, car on the ground etc left out in it - and I hope you are not saying it's safe to breathe it!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top