Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[flamingjimmy 10]

it's relatively safe only until it goes wrong....

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

 

All the deaths from Chernobyl were factored into the numbers I quoted earlier, and are dwarfed every year by the number of deaths caused by other methods of power generation.

 

Per amount of power generated, Nuclear is the safest energy generation method we have. You'd be 10 times safer working in a nuclear power plant than you would be installing solar panels on someone's roof.

[Robin-H 11]

it's relatively safe only until it goes wrong....

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

 

As has already been discussed on this thread the number of deaths when hydroelectric power goes wrong (dam burst) have been much higher.

[unbeliever 10]

So I'll echo Obelix's response from about a page ago:

 

Do you have a reference for that assertion?

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And you're not just being cynical you're invoking a conspiracy that envelopes (as you yourself have pointed out) every single high ranking member of every major environmental group, with none of them ever coming out about it, over about 60 years.

 

No really there isn't a conspiracy against nuclear energy (apart from that coming from the fossil fuel industry who actually do have massive vested interests in the regions of billions and billions of pounds in keeping us reliant on them). The grass roots green movement certainly isn't a part of it. It's just lack of education and people being silly for the most part.

 

That's reasonable but I'm not convinced.

Anyway doesn't really matter. Stupid or corrupt they are a serious negative force in the world.

[petemcewan 27]

Don't just talk about it-do something about it.

 

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/uksera/pages/19/attachments/original/1475885930/next-gen-final-web.pdf?1475885930

[Obelix 11]

That's from 10 seconds of googling, to be honest I can't really believe anyone actually challenged the statement. Just to be clear Obelix what is it that you don't believe?

 

I don't recall making a statement of position on this at all. you've decided to pick one that you think is wrong and then ascribe it to me.

 

So I'm sorry I cannot answer the question you posed because it's not even wrong.

[flamingjimmy 10]

I don't recall making a statement of position on this at all. you've decided to pick one that you think is wrong and then ascribe it to me.

 

So I'm sorry I cannot answer the question you posed because it's not even wrong.

What on earth you asked for references didn't you?

 

And seriously you can't answer the question 'what is it that you don't believe?' [about my statement which you challenged]

 

C'mon pull the other one and get off that high horse.

 

It was only a page ago but in case you've forgotten the statement was this:

 

'[the] influence [of the green lobby on governmental policy] is completely dwarfed by the vast money and resources poured into politics by the vested interests in the fossil fuel industries'

 

And I haven't built any strawmen I've only asked you questions to try and get you to clarify your position.

Edited January 13, 2017 by flamingjimmy

[Obelix 11]

You can't answer the question 'what is it that you don't believe?' [about my statement which you challenged]

 

C'mon pull the other and get off that high horse.

 

It was only a page ago but in case you've forgotten the statement was this:

 

'[the] influence [of the green lobby on governmental policy] is completely dwarfed by the vast money and resources poured into politics by the vested interests in the fossil fuel industries'

 

And I haven't built any strawmen I've only asked you questions to try and get you to clarify your position.

 

That wasn't my statement, and I never agreed with it. I suggest respectfully you go back and look at what I actually said.

[flamingjimmy 10]

That wasn't my statement, and I never agreed with it. I suggest respectfully you go back and look at what I actually said.

 

?!? Have you had no sleep or something? I never said you said it, or agreed with it quite the opposite. I said it! It's right there one page back!

 

You disagreed with it, or at the least challenged it and invoked a green conspiracy:

 

"Do you have a reference for that assertion that doesn't come from the green lobby?"

 

I then provided some references to back it up from the Guardian and the LSE, aswell as yes one link from a green lobby. I also asked you specifically what it was about the statement that you didn't believe.

 

I think our wires have gotten crossed here, perhaps you should go back and read again too.

[Obelix 11]

I asked for any evidence of that statement from a source other than the green lobby. You didn't provide that (the work dwarfed is rather important there) and then immediately decided to have a go at me.

 

That's not civil debate. I don't expect to ask a reasonable question and then immediately get caught up in what appears to be an debate you are having with someone else. You then accuse me of sitting on a high horse and get all het up with me when I dare to ask for clarification and a second look at what was said. You debate usually much better than this, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not tell you exactly what I currently think of your conduct.

[flamingjimmy 10]

I asked for any evidence of that statement from a source other than the green lobby. You didn't provide that (the work dwarfed is rather important there) and then immediately decided to have a go at me.

I didn't start 'having a go' at you until you insulted me with the 'not even wrong' jibe.

 

What about post 3901 is having a go at you? I provide some references for my statement and ask you to clarify what you didn't believe about it exactly.

 

Now finally you come back that your main objection is the word 'dwarfed', ok we're getting somewhere.

 

So is it just a question of degree then?

 

Seriously help me out. I imagine there's more to it than that and don't want you to accuse me of ascribing to you positions that you do not hold so please help me out and actually clarify it.

 

That's not civil debate. I don't expect to ask a reasonable question and then immediately get caught up in what appears to be an debate you are having with someone else.

I'm sorry but inbetween the time when you asked that question and I came back to the thread others had joined in the discussion had flowed somewhat, sorry for not making an individual post just to respond to you and including cyclone and unbeliever in the discussion. I thought we could all get along.

 

You then accuse me of sitting on a high horse

Yup, and it seems like you're still there. Join me here on terra firma.

 

and get all het up with me when I dare to ask for clarification and a second look at what was said.

because as I pointed out you had misunderstood things.

 

You thought I was ascribing something that I had said to you, when I wasn't I was just quoting myself.

 

I'd love some clarfication, and I've done my best to actually clarify things when you've pulled me up on them. However you've still yet to answer what it is that you don't believe about my statement specifically. That's all I'm doing asking for clarification.

 

You debate usually much better than this, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not tell you exactly what I currently think of your conduct.

You just spent the entire post doing just that, but by all means leave out the rest if it gets more colourful sure.

 

Can't we just drop this and go back to the start, you respond to the question in post 3901 and we move on from there, or is the way I've conducted myself on this thread unforgivable?

Edited January 13, 2017 by flamingjimmy

[swarfendor437 14]

Hidden in 'Never A Straight Answer' project thread lies the answer (the reason) for climate change - it's just not been acknowledged as such!

 

"Scott Bailey, the principal investigator of the mission from Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, said, “The aurora creates nitric oxide, but in the polar night there is no significant process for destroying the nitric oxide. We believe it builds up to large concentrations. The purpose of our rocket is to measure the abundance and altitude of peak abundance for the nitric oxide.”

 

“Nitric oxide under appropriate conditions can be transported to the stratosphere where it will catalytically destroy ozone,” Bailey said. Those changes in ozone can lead to changes in stratospheric temperature and wind and may even impact the circulation at Earth’s surface."

 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/wallops/2017/3-2-1-aurora-2017-rocket-campaign-begins-in-alaska

[convert 10]

David Rose in the Mail on Sunday reports that John J Bates has revealed a host of questionable practices committed by NOAA scientists as they rushed through the ‘Pausebuster’ paper.

 

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.

His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.

 

Is this all Trump needs to pull out of the climate accords?