Clown. Control yourself.
Greta Thunberg
- Thread starter rubberduck
- Start date
Clown. Control yourself.
Looking at your post history from the last few pages in this thread, he has a point. You contribute nothing of value to the discussion and make banal, white noise comments to express your weird hate boner for a teenage girl.
Maybe follow your own advice?
Hate boner, hahaha another clown.
I hate the donuts that have been so easily sucked in, maybe stick to twitter and insta yeah?
Sucked into what, exactly? I don't use twitter or Instagram so obviously missing the galaxy brain conspiracy you've figured out here, champ.
I am well controlled thanks. Calling me a clown feels like a last resort for someone clutching at straws. As I said, I actually work in the industry you're talking about and claim to know more than me, and everyone else on this thread. I'm certainly no leading expert, but I'd imagine my grasp on the situation is somewhat more comprehensive than yourself.
Ditto, never used either, and really don't have much input in the ways of social media either.
Again, calling us donuts and saying we've been sucked in; I'm yet to read anything GIBURROWS writes that's either credible or logical, yet he has the galls to say we're the ones being duped. The irony isn't lost on us.
In passing Brian Cox is someone who has just been built up by the BBC to be something he is not. He's a not a climatologist or indeed educated in most of the things he makes comment on. That, of course, is just fine, unless he is presented by the BBC as some sort of expert, which he is not. He is a particle physicist, and not even a very good one, which means he's pretty useless at everything. He is no more qualified as you to start sprouting facts about Global Warming.
Yeah, I think we have to be careful about this sort of research. I am a huge believer in Global Warming, but I would have to read the research notes before I would believe such claims. 8.7m is a very large number, and I would love to know how they came to that conclusion.
I referenced him as he is one of the more ready examples of presenting the narration of climate change I'm referring to - my main objections to it, not whether it is right or wrong, being:
-Misleading representation of data - using historic low points as if the starting point for climate change, filtering data to fit the narration (the last one somewhat a moot point in light of more recent changes as the end result is the same, just some wibbles along the way, but it sets a dishonest tone which devalues the message).
-If the progression they are showing is followed through to its likely conclusion then nothing we are doing is even a scratch on the measures needed and stuff like the Paris Accords will accomplish the sum of absolutely nothing material and we absolutely need to start treating it like an imminent emergency situation.
I believe because the pollution is easily visible and I bet no living creature can survive in such environments:
Diesel exhaust:
Coal power plant exhaust:
I agree. And that's really why I targeted Cox. He is out of his depth and frankly he is not even a good scientist when he is in his depth, so to speak. It really doesn't help when you get people who have already adopted a conclusion and then try to fit the data to prove it. The number one rule of science is you must never do that. You always have to keep an open mind and present ALL the data, not just the data that suits your opinion. Thunberg is really the same but at least she doesn't proclaim to be a scientist. The Cox's of the world are a menace because they ( or at least the BBC ) do make such claims.
I believe because the pollution is easily visible and I bet no living creature can survive in such environments:
Diesel exhaust:
Coal power plant exhaust:
Oh yes. I am sure that this stuff does kill people. And I am sure it affects the climate. But it's a big leap from a smokey pictures to 8.7m dead per year. And maybe that many do die. I dunno. Just seems a little too high to me.... so I would like to see the research.
It was said when China was shutting down its factories due to covid last year more lives would be saved by that than would die of covid. There is lots of research out there that puts pollution deaths in millions.
https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_1
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,955
@4K8KW10
The plume visible in the coal station photo is all water vapour. The exposure of that shot does not show any dust or Nox emissions that I can see. The visible clouds are not pollution.
The plume visible in the coal station photo is all water vapour. The exposure of that shot does not show any dust or Nox emissions that I can see. The visible clouds are not pollution.
Personally I wonder if the particulate from brake dust and tyres doesn't have a bigger impact directly on people's health than diesel pollutants.
I found it curious at the peak of the lockdown when there was hardly any traffic on the road - I'd get out of my truck at work and it was noticeable I could breath more easily, etc. not just imagining it.
Yes, it is one of the main reasons electric cars won't eliminate the pollution problem in cities.
The brakes and tyres wear in urban is very low - you are not always on your brakes - and that wear appears during heavy braking in extra-urban conditions, read the highways.
A lot of urban places I'm on and off the brakes a lot due to things like traffic queues, parked cars on the street turning things into a mess, etc.
Not to mention all the traffic lights which councils at the moment seem to like increasing the number of as much as possible for some reason.
Brake wear in urban environments is higher than anywhere else. Stop start traffic is common. Getting people out of cars and into other forms of transport is key.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48944561