Forums
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
cryoftruth
19 Jul 22 08:29
Joined:
Date Joined: 22 Mar 04
| Topic/replies: 11,180 | Blogger: cryoftruth's blog
Records tumbling again. Train rails buckling. Europe on fire.

All scientists demonstrating that global warming is a direct result of burning fossil fuels.

Never mind we have serious analysts to keep us right.

I mean who needs scientists when we have extremist Trump supporting bigots to tell us the real truth about global warming on a betting forum?

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 1 of 6  •  Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 231
By:
lfc1971
When: 19 Jul 22 08:57
If climate change was happening why do we not get 40 degree days every day - including the winter ?
instead we get a few good days if we are lucky and then guess what , it’s cold and rainy when the weekend comes
By:
Timber
When: 19 Jul 22 09:06
LaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaughLaugh
By:
Timber
When: 19 Jul 22 09:07
Cryer, that simple he doesn't understand we are in SUMMER

Here's some Janet & John reading for you cryer

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/met-office-for-schools/other-content/other-resources/our-seasons
By:
Foinavon
When: 19 Jul 22 09:14
"All Scientists"? That's a barefaced lie for a start.
By:
A_T
When: 19 Jul 22 09:20
it's mostly people who failed at school who watch youtube videos which convince them they are cleverer than those who did well
By:
Foinavon
When: 19 Jul 22 09:36
As I have no idea of the academic achievements of others on here, I couldn't venture to confirm or deny such a generalisation. Perhaps you are better informed?
By:
Timber
When: 19 Jul 22 09:41

Jul 19, 2022 -- 9:20AM, A_T wrote:


it's mostly people who failed at school who watch youtube videos which convince them they are cleverer than those who did well


What a well crafted coherent sentenceLaugh

Were you one of the test cases for  Dunning Kruger?

By:
clouded leopard
When: 19 Jul 22 09:48
Sweeping generalizations and insults tend to be the go-to tools employed by screaming bitter leftards unfortunately
By:
saddo
When: 19 Jul 22 09:53
cryoftruth 19 Jul 22 08:29 
Records tumbling again. Train rails buckling. Europe on fire.

All scientists demonstrating that global warming is a direct result of burning fossil fuels.

......................



You mean all the scientists they put on TV and radio I think. Like covid, they won't have any scientist on who differs in opinion.
By:
edy
When: 19 Jul 22 10:19

Jul 19, 2022 -- 9:48AM, clouded leopard wrote:


Sweeping generalizations and insults tend to be the go-to tools employed by screaming bitter leftards unfortunately


Do you ever sweepingly generalize?

By:
clouded leopard
When: 19 Jul 22 10:25
Only by design eduardo Mischief
By:
Timber
When: 19 Jul 22 10:30
Fun fact - 98% of scientists agree with whoever is funding them
By:
Timber
When: 19 Jul 22 10:32
There is no grift for the scientists with morals and scruples who deny man made climate change

Carbon credits is a very lucrative business

No grift if you oppose max vaccinations of experimental drugs
By:
edy
When: 19 Jul 22 10:32

Jul 19, 2022 -- 9:53AM, saddo wrote:


cryoftruth 19 Jul 22 08:29

By:
Timber
When: 19 Jul 22 10:33
LaughLaughLaugh
By:
edy
When: 19 Jul 22 10:33
I'm becoming Timber. Cry
By:
A_T
When: 19 Jul 22 10:38
Timber what happened to the 64 people on board Flight 77 that you believe didn't crash into the Pentagon on 9/11?
By:
Manoleeds
When: 19 Jul 22 10:38
Global warming is rowlocks https://dailysceptic.org/2022/07/18/another-glorious-day-for-the-climate-alarmists-to-scare-us-all-to-death/
By:
edy
When: 19 Jul 22 10:45
Saddo (and I guess Timber now):

saddo • July 19, 2022 9:53 AM BST
You mean all the scientists they put on TV and radio I think. Like covid, they won't have any scientist on who differs in opinion.

Everybody is free to look for publications or on alternative media if they think that the scientists "they put on TV and radio" are talking bull and that there is truth to be had elsewhere. Let's leave the scientific side of things aside for a moment though and focus on the money side of things that many of those without a scientific background often like to focus on.

Man-man climate change has been published on for decades. During all these decades, fossil fuel companies have had unimaginable wealth and ressources. Some of whom are starting to have to pay quite a bit of money in punishment fees for the climate and nature disruptions they have caused and continue to cause. Some of the companies have entire countries behind them. Countries that are literally financing themselves through the sale of fossil fuels and have achieved great prosperity through it. Yet, even after all these decades and with these unimaginably wealthy actors that would have tremendous interest in denying/discrediting that the burning of fossil fuels causes a change in climate, the best they can come up with are memes about some place being cold for a few months and constant, deliberate misportrayals on things like e.g. Milankovitch cycles as recently again brought to the forum by intellectual Überflieger Timber. What's your hypothesis on why this is?
By:
saddo
When: 19 Jul 22 10:53
I don't know anyone who doesn't think the climate is changing, but it has always done so and that is irrefutable.

The question is whether the more recent changes are down to mankind. If it is, there is an easy fix, we are too many and need to reduce populations worldwide.

Instead they accept future rising populations as a given, and all their increasingly expensive and hugely inconvenient remedies are aimed at less pollution from more and more people. It cannot be done.
By:
clouded leopard
When: 19 Jul 22 10:56
Here's the actual question ... why now ?

after many many years of 'the science' tells us 'doom'.. why choose now to act ?

couldda got jiggy beards ago

couldda got a tad more nuclear decades ago
By:
edy
When: 19 Jul 22 11:00

Jul 19, 2022 -- 10:53AM, saddo wrote:


I don't know anyone who doesn't think the climate is changing, but it has always done so and that is irrefutable.The question is whether the more recent changes are down to mankind. If it is, there is an easy fix, we are too many and need to reduce populations worldwide.Instead they accept future rising populations as a given, and all their increasingly expensive and hugely inconvenient remedies are aimed at less pollution from more and more people. It cannot be done.


Replacing energy sources is probably easier and less problematic legally than force sterilising large parts of the planet.

By:
saddo
When: 19 Jul 22 11:02
Everthing they do in the next decade is expensive waste. At some point, if those who want to save the planet really do want to save it, they will admit we are too numerous for the planet to sustain.
By:
Timber
When: 19 Jul 22 11:05
Replacing energy sourcesLaugh

Like the germans... with coal from South AfricaLaugh
It's going to be a long winter
By:
Timber
When: 19 Jul 22 11:06
Electric Vehicle Reportedly Sparks Wildfire That Has Displaced Thousands In FranceLaughLaughLaugh
By:
edy
When: 19 Jul 22 11:07
clouded leopard • July 19, 2022 10:56 AM BST
Here's the actual question ... why now ?

after many many years of 'the science' tells us 'doom'.. why choose now to act ?

couldda got jiggy beards ago

couldda got a tad more nuclear decades ago


Now? Countries started having treaties and agreements on the reduction of greenhouse gases literal decades ago. Go look it up and do some research for a change. The human is simply a complacent being and with climate change being rather abstract and distanced, actually doing policy changes in the countries has always been a tough sell and often didn't receive the urgency and ressources the countries had committed to internationally.
By:
edy
When: 19 Jul 22 11:08
Timber • July 19, 2022 11:05 AM BST
Replacing energy sourcesLaugh

Like the germans... with coal from South AfricaLaugh
It's going to be a long winter


Indeed, Timber, indeed. It is a lot easier, or at least legally less problematic, to buy coal from South Africa for this winter than to kill half the population ahead of December.
By:
saddo
When: 19 Jul 22 11:08
They'll be bulldozing more towns in Germany soon to get at the stuff, if pootin turns the gas off you just know who'll do better than the rest in the EU this winter.
By:
Kriskin
When: 19 Jul 22 11:09
Need to start banning all of their Private Jets.  U had that Prince boy yesterday telling us the World is on fire.  All he does is fly around the world in his Private jet and uses a big guzzler SUV to travel on land.  You couldn't make the hypocrisy up.
By:
Timber
When: 19 Jul 22 11:10
[   This image is no longer available.   ]
By:
edy
When: 19 Jul 22 11:12
That's a true teuton right there. Can you imagine being enough of a total wimp to change course towards this Russia and its government because you can't stand the idea of washing yourself before 11 pm?
By:
edy
When: 19 Jul 22 11:13
*washing yourself with warm water before 11 pm
By:
edy
When: 19 Jul 22 11:15
Well, of course you, Timber, can imagine being enough of a total wimp. Silly question, sorry.
By:
Foinavon
When: 19 Jul 22 11:15
It's about time the EU redefined coal as a green transition fuel, it is after all, organic in origin.
By:
Timber
When: 19 Jul 22 11:16
Just imagine if Germany had listened to Trump re Russia AND not shut down  their nuclear stationsLaugh
By:
Timber
When: 19 Jul 22 11:17
Germany funding the Russian war machine, amazing stuffLaugh
By:
saddo
When: 19 Jul 22 11:22
Foinavon, they give a power station not far from here a billion pounds a year subsidy to burn wood ships instead of coal, same emissions. The argument is that the trees are replaceable while coal is not. We don't need to replace the coal, and it would buy us time to plan things rather better than they have done so far.
By:
edy
When: 19 Jul 22 11:23
Trump wanted to sell Germany more expensive US LNG, without Germany even having an LNG terminal or the infrastructure to get the gas from LNG terminals abroad to the places where the gas from Russia goes.
By:
edy
When: 19 Jul 22 11:33

Jul 19, 2022 -- 11:22AM, saddo wrote:


Foinavon, they give a power station not far from here a billion pounds a year subsidy to burn wood ships instead of coal, same emissions. The argument is that the trees are replaceable while coal is not. We don't need to replace the coal, and it would buy us time to plan things rather better than they have done so far.


In general the argument is two-fold, The carbon that is being released from burning trees was only rather recently taken out of the atmosphere instead of you releasing carbon that had been safely stored in the ground for millions of years. In addition, your mentioned replaceable thing comes into play. In an ideal world, a new tree will grow where the old tree grew and again take in the carbon you released when burning the old tree.

It's a nice theory, but I have my reservations on whether it actually works out like that or whether folk will just deforest large areas and the strategy amounting to greenwashing and it preventing ressources going into things like wind turbines and a storage and delivery infrastructure.

Page 1 of 6  •  Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com