US politics

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

US politics

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 122 of 706 < 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 >

cryrst The garden of England 21 Jul 21 4.56am
Originally posted by Wilesy01 Whilst I didn't like Liverpool winning the title either there is literally thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed studies of why climate change is real, and why humans have contributed towards it. I also agree we've contributed, we must have but it's the degrees our input has affected climate change. That's where the study should be. Not an all in its all us. The earth is constantly evolving and with evolution there are changes. It will and has adapted to our input and will still be the green and pleasant land it is now, many millenia after we've gone. The green revolution should happen but as a natural thing, not as a forced thing in a few years. Whose to say the earth and its environment hasn't adapted to our input in whichever amount it is and like an alcoholic or a drug addict it needs weaning off over a period of time, not overnight. That could infact make our climate a lot worse.
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 21 Jul 21 4.56am

Originally posted by Wilesy01

Whilst I didn't like Liverpool winning the title either there is literally thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed studies of why climate change is real, and why humans have contributed towards it.

I also agree we've contributed, we must have but it's the degrees our input has affected climate change. That's where the study should be. Not an all in its all us. The earth is constantly evolving and with evolution there are changes. It will and has adapted to our input and will still be the green and pleasant land it is now, many millenia after we've gone. The green revolution should happen but as a natural thing, not as a forced thing in a few years. Whose to say the earth and its environment hasn't adapted to our input in whichever amount it is and like an alcoholic or a drug addict it needs weaning off over a period of time, not overnight. That could infact make our climate a lot worse.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Jul 21 9.01am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Trump says it came from a lab and it was a reprehensible conspiracy theory. The WHO start to think the same a year later and they deserve support. Yes, because of the timing and motivation. When Trump made the claim it was just speculation which he then exploited to divert attention from the criticism of his weak response. He politicised the pandemic by describing it as the"China virus". The WHO are not now saying that this was what happened, but that the possibility ought not be so firmly discounted as they first did. Totally different. One deserves support. The other condemnation. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 21 Jul 21 9.01am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Trump says it came from a lab and it was a reprehensible conspiracy theory.
The WHO start to think the same a year later and they deserve support.

Yes, because of the timing and motivation.

When Trump made the claim it was just speculation which he then exploited to divert attention from the criticism of his weak response. He politicised the pandemic by describing it as the"China virus".

The WHO are not now saying that this was what happened, but that the possibility ought not be so firmly discounted as they first did.

Totally different. One deserves support. The other condemnation.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Jul 21 9.09am
Originally posted by cryrst Prove it then because all we have are predictions with no historic data to compare it to. The earth is older than you WE. Building on flood plains and in old valleys is folly. They had water there once and will again. Its in the description. The hot weather is probably normal but it changes areas as the earth moves around on its axises. I am not an expert. I just happened to know one. You are though wrong. There is a great deal of historical data, taken from things like ice cores and tree rings. No-one argues that building on flood plains isn't folly, but such things are contributory factors which are all part of a complicated equation. What must not be denied is that man made warming is real, is increasing, and will lead to a catastrophe unless we take steps to mitigate it's impact. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 21 Jul 21 9.09am

Originally posted by cryrst

Prove it then because all we have are predictions with no historic data to compare it to. The earth is older than you WE. Building on flood plains and in old valleys is folly. They had water there once and will again. Its in the description. The hot weather is probably normal but it changes areas as the earth moves around on its axises.

I am not an expert. I just happened to know one. You are though wrong. There is a great deal of historical data, taken from things like ice cores and tree rings. No-one argues that building on flood plains isn't folly, but such things are contributory factors which are all part of a complicated equation.

What must not be denied is that man made warming is real, is increasing, and will lead to a catastrophe unless we take steps to mitigate it's impact.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman Horsham 21 Jul 21 9.20am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Yes, because of the timing and motivation. When Trump made the claim it was just speculation which he then exploited to divert attention from the criticism of his weak response. He politicised the pandemic by describing it as the"China virus". The WHO are not now saying that this was what happened, but that the possibility ought not be so firmly discounted as they first did. Totally different. One deserves support. The other condemnation. So there is a distinct possibility that Trump was correct? If so why not call it the Chinese virus,
Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman

Horsham 21 Jul 21 9.20am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Yes, because of the timing and motivation.

The WHO are not now saying that this was what happened, but that the possibility ought not be so firmly discounted as they first did.

Totally different. One deserves support. The other condemnation.

So there is a distinct possibility that Trump was correct? If so why not call it the Chinese virus,

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 21 Jul 21 9.26am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Yes, because of the timing and motivation. When Trump made the claim it was just speculation which he then exploited to divert attention from the criticism of his weak response. He politicised the pandemic by describing it as the"China virus". The WHO are not now saying that this was what happened, but that the possibility ought not be so firmly discounted as they first did. Totally different. One deserves support. The other condemnation. Total projection. It did start in China. They’ve obviously lied about the number of deaths there , remember “ China suppresses the truth, as it seems to with many things”, and yet Trump is the villain of the piece for pointing it out.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

21 Jul 21 9.26am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Yes, because of the timing and motivation.

The WHO are not now saying that this was what happened, but that the possibility ought not be so firmly discounted as they first did.

Totally different. One deserves support. The other condemnation.

Total projection. It did start in China. They’ve obviously lied about the number of deaths there , remember “ China suppresses the truth, as it seems to with many things”, and yet Trump is the villain of the piece for pointing it out.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Jul 21 9.26am
Originally posted by cryrst Climate scientists study the climate to find reasons it changes. There are those same learned people out there who disagree with your friend. Is their evidence and reasoning not as valid. These aren't raving loonies they are using the same data and finding different answers. Do you not even find it a bit strange that so much is invested in this that the answers fit the finance. It is also a fact that any of these scientists going against the man made theory are cancelled and ostracised, funding for their research is cut to them. What would you do, starve or lie? Science isn't proved by a majority in agreement. I regret that you are again wrong. The vast majority of climate scientists have no doubt at all that man made warming is real. Their disagreements are about the scale but as the science gets better the gaps are narrowing. There are a few outliers. There are in every field. Their motivation is questioned by people like my friend, especially when their funding comes from the fossil fuel industry and their claims are largely treated with disdain by the real experts. The accusation that the scientists produce the results the politicians want so they can sustain their own funding is often made. I can only tell you of my own experience. The ethical standards of my friend were beyond any doubt. She worked all the time because she cared. She knew she could make a difference and save lives. Money and recognition didn't matter to her. When I first heard Professor Sarah Gilbert speak about her work on the Oxford C19 vaccine, I was reminded of my friend. They both have a devotion to the science and to making a difference. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 21 Jul 21 9.26am

Originally posted by cryrst

Climate scientists study the climate to find reasons it changes. There are those same learned people out there who disagree with your friend. Is their evidence and reasoning not as valid. These aren't raving loonies they are using the same data and finding different answers. Do you not even find it a bit strange that so much is invested in this that the answers fit the finance. It is also a fact that any of these scientists going against the man made theory are cancelled and ostracised, funding for their research is cut to them. What would you do, starve or lie?
Science isn't proved by a majority in agreement.

I regret that you are again wrong. The vast majority of climate scientists have no doubt at all that man made warming is real. Their disagreements are about the scale but as the science gets better the gaps are narrowing. There are a few outliers. There are in every field. Their motivation is questioned by people like my friend, especially when their funding comes from the fossil fuel industry and their claims are largely treated with disdain by the real experts.

The accusation that the scientists produce the results the politicians want so they can sustain their own funding is often made. I can only tell you of my own experience. The ethical standards of my friend were beyond any doubt. She worked all the time because she cared. She knew she could make a difference and save lives. Money and recognition didn't matter to her. When I first heard Professor Sarah Gilbert speak about her work on the Oxford C19 vaccine, I was reminded of my friend. They both have a devotion to the science and to making a difference.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Jul 21 9.34am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Total projection. It did start in China. They’ve obviously lied about the number of deaths there , remember “ China suppresses the truth, as it seems to with many things”, and yet Trump is the villain of the piece for pointing it out. You seem to be missing the point. Trump couldn't point anything out. No-one knew then, and they still don't. He used the speculation and amplified it from being a theoretical possibility to being the probable cause. The outbreak started in China. Whether the virus originated there remains unknown and is possibly unknowable. China does suppress the truth, but when they don't know the truth either, then they have nothing to suppress. Other theories, which by the way I also dismiss as highly unlikely, suggest the virus was planted in China by the USA to discredit it. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 21 Jul 21 9.34am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

You seem to be missing the point.

Trump couldn't point anything out. No-one knew then, and they still don't. He used the speculation and amplified it from being a theoretical possibility to being the probable cause.

The outbreak started in China. Whether the virus originated there remains unknown and is possibly unknowable. China does suppress the truth, but when they don't know the truth either, then they have nothing to suppress.

Other theories, which by the way I also dismiss as highly unlikely, suggest the virus was planted in China by the USA to discredit it.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Jul 21 9.41am
Originally posted by Spiderman So there is a distinct possibility that Trump was correct? If so why not call it the Chinese virus, There is also the chance that if you toss a coin, it will come down heads 100 times in succession. You don't win a Nobel Prize if you achieve that, although Trump would want one. I have no doubt that should we every reach the point when the origins are established beyond any reasonable doubt, that any necessary blame will be apportioned. Until then, no. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 21 Jul 21 9.41am

Originally posted by Spiderman

So there is a distinct possibility that Trump was correct? If so why not call it the Chinese virus,

There is also the chance that if you toss a coin, it will come down heads 100 times in succession. You don't win a Nobel Prize if you achieve that, although Trump would want one.

I have no doubt that should we every reach the point when the origins are established beyond any reasonable doubt, that any necessary blame will be apportioned.

Until then, no.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 21 Jul 21 9.54am
Originally posted by cryrst I also agree we've contributed, we must have but it's the degrees our input has affected climate change. That's where the study should be. Not an all in its all us. The earth is constantly evolving and with evolution there are changes. It will and has adapted to our input and will still be the green and pleasant land it is now, many millenia after we've gone. The green revolution should happen but as a natural thing, not as a forced thing in a few years. Whose to say the earth and its environment hasn't adapted to our input in whichever amount it is and like an alcoholic or a drug addict it needs weaning off over a period of time, not overnight. That could infact make our climate a lot worse. Yeah this is mainly complete bollocks according to scientific consensus, and on that point I quite logically trust the scientific community more than partisan hacks. Ultimately whether we are having a significant effect or not on one area of the debate (climate change) is a moot point. Belching out trillions and trillions of pollutants, plastics and forever chemicals into the environment is quite obviously not a good thing, or something that can simply be waved away. The sooner we move away from that model of living to a more sustainable, and then ideally regenerative one the better. Your point on adaptation is also too general - the earth will always adapt, but the outcome of that adaptation is not positive by default, which you are insinuating, somehow. Also your point re, ‘it will always be…’ is laughable - simply, it won’t. Potentially if you just said to hell with it all and took an 80s/90s mindset and raped the whole thing until it died, including us, yeah, it might eventually produce a new wave of animal and plant species in a few million years. But it certainly wouldn’t ‘still be the green and pleasant land it is now’ try pre industrial era. Was. Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.
Alert a moderator to this post

SW19 CPFC

Addiscombe West 21 Jul 21 9.54am

Originally posted by cryrst

Yeah this is mainly complete bollocks according to scientific consensus, and on that point I quite logically trust the scientific community more than partisan hacks.

Ultimately whether we are having a significant effect or not on one area of the debate (climate change) is a moot point. Belching out trillions and trillions of pollutants, plastics and forever chemicals into the environment is quite obviously not a good thing, or something that can simply be waved away. The sooner we move away from that model of living to a more sustainable, and then ideally regenerative one the better. Your point on adaptation is also too general - the earth will always adapt, but the outcome of that adaptation is not positive by default, which you are insinuating, somehow.

Also your point re, ‘it will always be…’ is laughable - simply, it won’t. Potentially if you just said to hell with it all and took an 80s/90s mindset and raped the whole thing until it died, including us, yeah, it might eventually produce a new wave of animal and plant species in a few million years. But it certainly wouldn’t ‘still be the green and pleasant land it is now*’

*try pre industrial era. Was.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 21 Jul 21 9.56am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle You seem to be missing the point. Trump couldn't point anything out. No-one knew then, and they still don't. He used the speculation and amplified it from being a theoretical possibility to being the probable cause. The outbreak started in China. Whether the virus originated there remains unknown and is possibly unknowable. China does suppress the truth, but when they don't know the truth either, then they have nothing to suppress. Other theories, which by the way I also dismiss as highly unlikely, suggest the virus was planted in China by the USA to discredit it. This makes no sense. How can it be “a theoretical possibility” when “the outbreak started in China”? This is a verifiable fact unlike Trump’s motivation.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

21 Jul 21 9.56am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

You seem to be missing the point.

Trump couldn't point anything out. No-one knew then, and they still don't. He used the speculation and amplified it from being a theoretical possibility to being the probable cause.

Other theories, which by the way I also dismiss as highly unlikely, suggest the virus was planted in China by the USA to discredit it.

This makes no sense. How can it be “a theoretical possibility” when “the outbreak started in China”?
This is a verifiable fact unlike Trump’s motivation.

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 21 Jul 21 11.15am
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC Yeah this is mainly complete bollocks according to scientific consensus, and on that point I quite logically trust the scientific community more than partisan hacks. Ultimately whether we are having a significant effect or not on one area of the debate (climate change) is a moot point. Belching out trillions and trillions of pollutants, plastics and forever chemicals into the environment is quite obviously not a good thing, or something that can simply be waved away. The sooner we move away from that model of living to a more sustainable, and then ideally regenerative one the better. Your point on adaptation is also too general - the earth will always adapt, but the outcome of that adaptation is not positive by default, which you are insinuating, somehow. Also your point re, ‘it will always be…’ is laughable - simply, it won’t. Potentially if you just said to hell with it all and took an 80s/90s mindset and raped the whole thing until it died, including us, yeah, it might eventually produce a new wave of animal and plant species in a few million years. But it certainly wouldn’t ‘still be the green and pleasant land it is now’ try pre industrial era. Was. OK so what comparison in net carbon emission is there between say the last 40 years and the 100 before then. I would think there is quite a big difference so our nowadays input could be inconsequential and always will be. Just maybe the earth is cleaning up the industrial revolution about now. BTW how much co2 in the atmosphere a 1000 years ago. I doubt its changed at all. Now it's 0039%.
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 21 Jul 21 11.15am

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

Yeah this is mainly complete bollocks according to scientific consensus, and on that point I quite logically trust the scientific community more than partisan hacks.

*try pre industrial era. Was.

OK so what comparison in net carbon emission is there between say the last 40 years and the 100 before then.
I would think there is quite a big difference so our nowadays input could be inconsequential and always will be. Just maybe the earth is cleaning up the industrial revolution about now.
BTW how much co2 in the atmosphere a 1000 years ago. I doubt its changed at all. Now it's 0039%.

Alert a moderator to this post

Behind Enemy Lines Sussex 21 Jul 21 11.25am
Thank you for your reply. It doesn't matter what mankind does, the Earth and nature will naturally produce events that change the climate. What I object to is the control that the climate lobby want to place on the rest of us, be that extra taxes, not eating meat, not driving, not going on holiday etc. I believe Extinction Rebellion say that we are in either the 4th or 5th extinction event; all the previous ones occurred before man existed. Hence nature has a way of killing species off 'naturally' by tilts, volcanoes, meteors and whatever. I have no problem with a incentivised move to greener technology (I have solar panels on my roof, have a solar powered watch and have an electric car in the pipeline)...but that is my choice. I don't want to be forced by some movement to do those things. Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle This is bs, pure and simple. Not the research into tilting, but your conclusions. There will be future ice ages, but they won't arrive in a century, but over thousands of years. By the time the next arrives, mankind will either have destroyed itself or decamped to another planet. We can safely leave the worries about that to future generations. As I have said here before, I had the privilege of knowing one of the UK's leading climate scientists on a personal level a few years ago. She knew the truth, and I knew her. She told the truth. It's real, I would bet my life on it. All of the natural causes have been factored in, but the evidence for man made warming, since the industrial revolution, makes this a fact and not a theory. That some now spin conspiracy theories of the type you offer is, I suppose, inevitable in today's world. As only the gullible believe them, it's a little ironic you think everyone else is. hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing.
Alert a moderator to this post

Behind Enemy Lines

Sussex 21 Jul 21 11.25am

Send a Private Message to Behind Enemy Lines

Thank you for your reply. It doesn't matter what mankind does, the Earth and nature will naturally produce events that change the climate. What I object to is the control that the climate lobby want to place on the rest of us, be that extra taxes, not eating meat, not driving, not going on holiday etc. I believe Extinction Rebellion say that we are in either the 4th or 5th extinction event; all the previous ones occurred before man existed. Hence nature has a way of killing species off 'naturally' by tilts, volcanoes, meteors and whatever. I have no problem with a incentivised move to greener technology (I have solar panels on my roof, have a solar powered watch and have an electric car in the pipeline)...but that is my choice. I don't want to be forced by some movement to do those things.

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

This is bs, pure and simple.

Not the research into tilting, but your conclusions.

There will be future ice ages, but they won't arrive in a century, but over thousands of years. By the time the next arrives, mankind will either have destroyed itself or decamped to another planet. We can safely leave the worries about that to future generations.

As I have said here before, I had the privilege of knowing one of the UK's leading climate scientists on a personal level a few years ago. She knew the truth, and I knew her. She told the truth. It's real, I would bet my life on it.

All of the natural causes have been factored in, but the evidence for man made warming, since the industrial revolution, makes this a fact and not a theory.

That some now spin conspiracy theories of the type you offer is, I suppose, inevitable in today's world. As only the gullible believe them, it's a little ironic you think everyone else is.

hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 122 of 706 < 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

US politics

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors