Question Time

Bet Caroline Lucas would love it if there was PR and REAL far right parties started getting seats? .. although that phrase is now totally devalued as anyone left of Lenin is now called a "racist" or "far right", as Lucas just proved in her next paragraph. Be a nice education perhaps to her kind as what it REALLY means.

Mr Actor has had enough and almost loses it when the Green Marxist tries to interupt him. Great stuff :)

Maybe FFW to towards the end (skipping the endless Brexit and Trump bashing territory that is mind numingly repetitive) to when the actor on the left virtually erupts in rage at Lucas. Great TV. We think it, he does it.

In a blind hearing test, I doubt you could tell if it was him or Brian Blessed saying "Gordon's alive!".
He made a lot of good points. The audience liked him. Age? The "aren't young kids climate change experts" bit at the start, as they fell over themselves to show how "down they are with the yoof" was a bit sickening..

Got it on now.

Fast forwarded to the baldy guy in the audience. What a plum

Greta Thunberg has done more than anybody on the Planet to highlight the issue and dangers of climate change and should be applauded. Everybody all over the world is speaking about it because of her.

Climate change is a non political issue and needs to be dealt with. It won`t effect us but as custodians of the planet, we owe it to our children and their children etc etc.

Yes she's done well but this explosion of children on our streets is just nonsense.
I bet a few of them would struggle with spelling climate change.
But the virtue signallers will egg them on.

Off topic I know but did you read about McGarry JC?

Part of the money came from the Glasgow Regional branch of the SNP where she was Treasurer, Secretary. and Convener.
What could go wrong with that set up.

Greta Thunberg has done more than anybody on the Planet to highlight the issue and dangers of climate change and should be applauded. Everybody all over the world is speaking about it because of her.

Climate change is a non political issue and needs to be dealt with. It won`t effect us but as custodians of the planet, we owe it to our children and their children etc etc.

Non-political issue??!

Jesus somersaulting Christ, just because any 'debate' on this issue these last few days has been outsourced to the people who make the Haribo ads on TV, where the adults talk like kids, doesn't mean that there are intensely 'political' questions that aren't being asked and certainly not of the the gimlet-eyed eco-friendly Scanda-pixie.

Who will fund the infrastructure costs for power supply in developing countries and how much will it cost them to provide stable power supplies by 2025??

How will petro-economies be prevented from descending into civil war and destabilising yet more of the planet?

Half of Russian government revenues come from oil and gas. What will be the effect on world peace of the collapse of the Russian economy and government? Which is more likely to cause global cataclysm in the next decade, a collapse of Russia, or current carbon emissions?

For starters....

Not too 'political' for you I hope?

Funnily enough, I read this morning a post by Mr elbee elsewhere. You may or may not agree.


There are only 390 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere. This is less than minuscule. It is almost non-existent. What’s more 93% of this miniscule greenhouse gas is naturally-released from soil, water, volcanos, etc. The greenhouse effect of CO2 is also minuscule. Atom absorbic spectroscopy shows that CO2 can only absorb infra-red radiation in the 15-micron frequency range, which means it only has the most minuscule of miniscule greenhouse effect. Water vapour is by far the most prevalent greenhouse gas, absorbing the entire infra-red spectrum and is 30,000 ppm in our atmosphere. In addition, CO2’s greenhouse effect is logarithmic. Higher concentrations have a decreasing greenhouse effect. Once CO2 exceeds 540 ppm, any additional CO2 has almost no effect. Despite the virtually-nil role CO2 plays in climate change, yet alone the paltry 7% of CO2 which is man-made, the small amount of CO2 there is in the atmosphere rises and falls along with temperature not because it is a cause of the temperature, but because of out-gassing. It is an effect of rising and falling temperatures. Out-gassing is a chemical property of gasses whereby more gas is released the warmer it becomes. Accordingly, as temperatures rise, more natural CO2 is released from water and soil. The nutty hockey stick graph is as much of a fraud as Al Gore is. The graph was fabricated by Penn State scientist Dr Michael Mann who all but discounted the Medievel Warming Period when temperatures were warmer than today, (according to 1,051 peer-reviewed studies representing 601 research institutes in 44 countries) and the Little Ice Age. If you remove these two huge climatic changes and smooth out the data from 1000 to 1930, it makes the graph look sinister. It’s not. The hockey stick is a bad joke even among AGW proponents. Ice core analysis proves rising and falling CO2 is the result of rising and falling temperatures, not the other way around. They conclusive show that when a new warming period starts, CO2 levels are still falling, and vice-versa. CO2 is not a poisonous gas. It is an essential plant food. It would be better for the earth if CO2 rose substantially from current levels. Higher CO2 creates higher crop yields. It saves millions from starvation. If CO2 falls below 180 ppm all life on earth would cease. CO2 would have to increase to 30,000 ppm (or about 10,000%) to reach dangerous levels. Water vapour, the sun and its solar cycles, galactic cosmic rays, ocean currents, jet streams, El Nino, tectonics, and cloud activity all affect climate. CO2 does not. It does not matter.

So why the hoax? Governments want trillions in CO2 taxes. Scientists want millions in AGW research grants, security companies want trillions in carbon trading commissions, and the UN wants trillions for global wealth redistribution. Governments also want to control CO2 emissions to wield power. It just amazes me that intelligent people believe this AGW stuff. It actually defies logic. It’s about money, corruption, and power.

Aka, Angus Robertson was on Politics Live. Andrew Neil would have prepared, had facts and statistics in front of him, eaten him alive. As is the norm, Woeful Coburn hadn't seem to have bothered at all with such professional effort and "preparation"...

It's so depressing Neil is effeectively retiring in stages. :(

Could you supply a link for that bigmo ?   I stopped reading when I got to the bit about “the 15 micron frequency range “ I am no physicist but a micron is a size not a frequency ,it should talk about 15 micron particles/atoms in a frequency band ,ie the amount of atoms of that size in a band or space ,ie spacing ,how close together they are ,just confuses things imo

The spacing of 15 micron atoms of concern is 0.5 microns ,that’s the “spacing frequency “i think but stand to be corrected .

*Nanometers

It’s the high light frequency hitting 15 Micron particles spaced at a 0.5 frequency imo ,stand to be corrected

Velocity = Frequency x Wavelength, this is very basic physics, so given speed of light (speed of electromagentic radiation) is pretty much constant in air and just slihtly slower than in a vaccum, you can say "15 microns" and it implies a frequency. You know V and know W so F is trivial to come up with. Given we're talking about infrared radiation being stopped from leaving the earth by CO2 we're talking about wavelength or freq of that nothing to do with CO2 atoms. It's not accurate to say 15 micron wavelength but it could just be very sloppy language and the underlying fact is correct. I.e. people talk about short wave radio and long wave radio, but then go and tune to a radio frequency that corresponds to that wavelength range.

Different molecules will absorb radiation at different frequuencies, it's how e.g. astonomers can look at light from a far off star or dust cloud and work out the chemical composition. Or even how a microwave oven works, it's roughly at the right frequency to excite and put the engery into a water molecule.

(I'm not saying it's correct I'm explaining what they are saying).