Energy bills

[ZRX61]

If the whales weren't in any danger of dying for this folly, then the companies wouldn't have needed a free pass for the first 20 whales that die...

[ZRX61]

Genuine question: what would it take to prove to you that particular website is entirely full of propaganda and disinformation?

Is there any possibility at all for aligning your opinion with the actual science and not this web of deceit?

I could post the links CCD shares instead, but then Piranha wouldn't have anything to do all day.

[Screwdriver]

No, we've already started, so we're not starting with me.

Uh. OK.

Well, the trouble with suggesting everything isn't true by asking for an example of, is that those who think otherwise cannot do so either.

We’ll see about that.

We've got an average carbon level of 0.04%, we're told by 'scientists' that plant life will die if carbon levels are reduced much below that.....so that blows out all of the other things we were told previously.

Historic “natural” levels of CO2 were around the 280-300 ppm (parts per million) since the start of the Industrial Revolution. So from about the late 1700 to the early 1900’s.
Data from here: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/u ... on-dioxide

Happy to provide more sources from other established providers or I’ll dig up the raw data if you are unwilling to accept this factual data.

As you can see from the attached link, levels have shot up since the turn of the last century and are now at record levels, circa 417 ppm.

CO2 levels established from geological samples show that levels can vary (naturally) from around 170-280 ppm over geological timespans from around 800,000 year ago to present day.

You say that “plant life will die” if “carbon is reduced much below that” which is a curious argument since CO2 levels are increasing so rapidly and the level of doom for plant life is impossibly low. So far as I am aware, CO2 levels have not fallen below 180 ppm in the past million years and are unlikely to EVER reach that sort of level again.

You double down on that statement after finding a webpage which details an artificial environment as a supplemental boost for growing plants - an environment we commonly refer to as a greenhouse. While that is somewhat ironic in this debate where I am arguing for the premise that increased CO2 is leading to “the greenhouse effect” on climate change, it says nothing to support your claim that “we're told by 'scientists' that plant life will die if carbon levels are reduced much below that”. In fact it is the exact opposite. The webpage you link to tells us that plants are perfectly happy in vastly higher concentrations of CO2 (so long as that level is maintained inside a greenhouse - or they’d cook due to global warming like the rest of us).

5 years ago, we were told we'll be in significant bother in 5 years time, well 5 years is here now......

Who was it that 5 years ago said we'll be in "significant bother"? How do you define "bother"? That could mean anything.

5 years ago Greta Thunburg or whoever she is said we'll be in trouble in 5 years (we all know she knows nothing anyway), her cult followers all gobble it up of course.

Seriously, who gives a fuck what Greta Thunburg says? She is the product of the mainstream media, a well intentioned “green” activist/influencer who was famous for being a child. She has since lost her way but even before she fell foul of the allure of fame, she was never taken seriously as a scientist. What she has to say about climate change is largely irrelevant. She was an inspiration and I admire her for that. Not so much now.

Unless my logic systems are failing me, you appear to suggest the "bother" you refer to is that "plant life will die" if CO2 levels fall "much below that" (i.e. 417 ppm). That is not only the opposite of your original argument, it is also an impossible level of reduction AND we're famously heading in the other direction as CO2 continues to rise. Rapidly...

[Screwdriver]

I could post the links CCD shares instead, but then Piranha wouldn't have anything to do all day.

If I didn't think you were a relatively sensible chap, I wouldn't bother. Somehow you have latched onto the nutty end of the debate and believe the nonsense they spout unquestioningly. You have a habit of quoting the exact same group every time and they're always, obviously, entirely incorrect in their outrageous claims.

So really, I would like to establish why you're so happy to accept their opinions and the best way to do that is to try and reveal their tactics when it comes to misrepresenting the science.

[Ant]

No, we've already started, so we're not starting with me.

Uh. OK.

Well, the trouble with suggesting everything isn't true by asking for an example of, is that those who think otherwise cannot do so either.

We’ll see about that.

We've got an average carbon level of 0.04%, we're told by 'scientists' that plant life will die if carbon levels are reduced much below that.....so that blows out all of the other things we were told previously.

Historic “natural” levels of CO2 were around the 280-300 ppm (parts per million) since the start of the Industrial Revolution. So from about the late 1700 to the early 1900’s.
Data from here: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/u ... on-dioxide

Happy to provide more sources from other established providers or I’ll dig up the raw data if you are unwilling to accept this factual data.

As you can see from the attached link, levels have shot up since the turn of the last century and are now at record levels, circa 417 ppm.

CO2 levels established from geological samples show that levels can vary (naturally) from around 170-280 ppm over geological timespans from around 800,000 year ago to present day.

You say that “plant life will die” if “carbon is reduced much below that” which is a curious argument since CO2 levels are increasing so rapidly and the level of doom for plant life is impossibly low. So far as I am aware, CO2 levels have not fallen below 180 ppm in the past million years and are unlikely to EVER reach that sort of level again.

You double down on that statement after finding a webpage which details an artificial environment as a supplemental boost for growing plants - an environment we commonly refer to as a greenhouse. While that is somewhat ironic in this debate where I am arguing for the premise that increased CO2 is leading to “the greenhouse effect” on climate change, it says nothing to support your claim that “we're told by 'scientists' that plant life will die if carbon levels are reduced much below that”. In fact it is the exact opposite. The webpage you link to tells us that plants are perfectly happy in vastly higher concentrations of CO2 (so long as that level is maintained inside a greenhouse - or they’d cook due to global warming like the rest of us).

5 years ago, we were told we'll be in significant bother in 5 years time, well 5 years is here now......

Who was it that 5 years ago said we'll be in "significant bother"? How do you define "bother"? That could mean anything.

5 years ago Greta Thunburg or whoever she is said we'll be in trouble in 5 years (we all know she knows nothing anyway), her cult followers all gobble it up of course.

Seriously, who gives a fuck what Greta Thunburg says? She is the product of the mainstream media, a well intentioned “green” activist/influencer who was famous for being a child. She has since lost her way but even before she fell foul of the allure of fame, she was never taken seriously as a scientist. What she has to say about climate change is largely irrelevant. She was an inspiration and I admire her for that. Not so much now.

Unless my logic systems are failing me, you appear to suggest the "bother" you refer to is that "plant life will die" if CO2 levels fall "much below that" (i.e. 417 ppm). That is not only the opposite of your original argument, it is also an impossible level of reduction AND we're famously heading in the other direction as CO2 continues to rise. Rapidly...

Well precisely, we're not going to reduce carbon that much, because we can't and it's not as bad as people make out. Scientists say this could happen, that could happen, could. No one has doubled down on anything.


Agreed, Greta has lost her way, but she's just an example of a hot aired loony protestor shouting at us that this will happen, that will happen when in reality no one knows. People have been saying things for years.

I see that you didn't refute what was said earlier. You did the same over the Met office in another thread. So it's not so much factual data, it's all weighted information forming opinion from scientists with an opinion and an agenda, you can post as much as you like from chosen sources, whilst refusing to refute what was said earlier.

I'm not really bothered in arguing the toss, just making the point really that it's all opinion based and not really fact. CO2 isn't really rapidly rising and if it was, why are we still chopping down trees in order to build more 'carbon' production?

Look at HS2, everything in its wake is gone for more 'carbon' - so they'll chop the carbon eaters down, install carbon producers and then tell us that it's out fault. Yeah ok, pull the other one.

[Screwdriver]

Well precisely, we're not going to reduce carbon that much, because we can't and it's not as bad as people make out. Scientists say this could happen, that could happen, could. No one has doubled down on anything.


Agreed, Greta has lost her way, but she's just an example of a hot aired loony protestor shouting at us that this will happen, that will happen when in reality no one knows. People have been saying things for years.

I see that you didn't refute what was said earlier. You did the same over the Met office in another thread. So it's not so much factual data, it's all weighted information forming opinion from scientists with an opinion and an agenda, you can post as much as you like from chosen sources, whilst refusing to refute what was said earlier.

I'm not really bothered in arguing the toss, just making the point really that it's all opinion based and not really fact. CO2 isn't really rapidly rising and if it was, why are we still chopping down trees in order to build more 'carbon' production?

Look at HS2, everything in its wake is gone for more 'carbon' - so they'll chop the carbon eaters down, install carbon producers and then tell us that it's out fault. Yeah ok, pull the other one.

Wait, what?? No!

"Precisely" we're not going to reduce it that much?? But you just said that was the "bother" we were going to be in five years from five years ago. That is what you said. Now you're suggesting because plants won't die from lack of CO2, the opposite of what you just said, somehow you're right??

"Scientists say this could happen that could happen". What does that nonsensical statement mean? It is pure rhetoric. You are saying nothing as if that means something. Nail it down; which "scientist" said what? (not Greta Thunberg FFS).

You doubled down after you first said "we'd be in bother in five years" by later trying to support that claim because (you say) a reduction in CO2 would destroy all plant life and you link to an article about fucking greenhouses ffs. Did you even read it?

I have refuted EVERYTHING you said earlier. In detail.

I did not "do the same" with the met office because even though I asked you a number of times to provide a link to your fallacious comment, criticising the met(eorological) office, you never have. You did not back up your statement because it was false.

I can't make head or tails of your other nonsense regarding weighted opinion. There is no truth more rigorously tested than scientific evidence. I f you cannot accept peer reviewed scientific evidence, you might just as well refuse to accept Euclid's axioms and just sit in a cave banging rocks together.

Finally you say "CO2 isn't rising". This must be some fantasy world which only you inhabit. I could get more sense talking to my cat. Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.

[ZRX61]

I could post the links CCD shares instead, but then Piranha wouldn't have anything to do all day.

If I didn't think you were a relatively sensible chap, I wouldn't bother. Somehow you have latched onto the nutty end of the debate and believe the nonsense they spout unquestioningly. You have a habit of quoting the exact same group every time and they're always, obviously, entirely incorrect in their outrageous claims.

So really, I would like to establish why you're so happy to accept their opinions and the best way to do that is to try and reveal their tactics when it comes to misrepresenting the science.

Not at all... Several times I post a link to the origin of what's posted on CCD. & no, they most certainly are NOT "always, obviously, entirely incorrect". I know you'd like to live in an echo chamber, but that's not how it works.

[ZRX61]

All that I need is a specific example (or two) which, knowing that site very well already, will be super easy to show @ZRX61 what it is they're doing with their "information" he should be wary of.

You mean like all those media outlets & politicians etc that pilloried Trump for Russian collusion? I seem to recall you questioning those *facts* & now you're incapable of asking ANY questions on the climate narrative.

[Ant]

Well precisely, we're not going to reduce carbon that much, because we can't and it's not as bad as people make out. Scientists say this could happen, that could happen, could. No one has doubled down on anything.


Agreed, Greta has lost her way, but she's just an example of a hot aired loony protestor shouting at us that this will happen, that will happen when in reality no one knows. People have been saying things for years.

I see that you didn't refute what was said earlier. You did the same over the Met office in another thread. So it's not so much factual data, it's all weighted information forming opinion from scientists with an opinion and an agenda, you can post as much as you like from chosen sources, whilst refusing to refute what was said earlier.

I'm not really bothered in arguing the toss, just making the point really that it's all opinion based and not really fact. CO2 isn't really rapidly rising and if it was, why are we still chopping down trees in order to build more 'carbon' production?

Look at HS2, everything in its wake is gone for more 'carbon' - so they'll chop the carbon eaters down, install carbon producers and then tell us that it's out fault. Yeah ok, pull the other one.

Wait, what?? No!

"Precisely" we're not going to reduce it that much?? But you just said that was the "bother" we were going to be in five years from five years ago. That is what you said. Now you're suggesting because plants won't die from lack of CO2, the opposite of what you just said, somehow you're right??

"Scientists say this could happen that could happen". What does that nonsensical statement mean? It is pure rhetoric. You are saying nothing as if that means something. Nail it down; which "scientist" said what? (not Greta Thunberg FFS).

You doubled down after you first said "we'd be in bother in five years" by later trying to support that claim because (you say) a reduction in CO2 would destroy all plant life and you link to an article about fucking greenhouses ffs. Did you even read it?

No doubling down.

I have refuted EVERYTHING you said earlier. In detail.

I did not "do the same" with the met office because even though I asked you a number of times to provide a link to your fallacious comment, criticising the met(eorological) office, you never have. You did not back up your statement because it was false.

YYou couldn't refute it either, the same as you're doing now. You're just regurgitating what your believe.

I can't make head or tails of your other nonsense regarding weighted opinion. There is no truth more rigorously tested than scientific evidence. I f you cannot accept peer reviewed scientific evidence, you might just as well refuse to accept Euclid's axioms and just sit in a cave banging rocks together.

The same for you and your cult following.

Finally you say "CO2 isn't rising".

No I didn't.

It's a cult

[Screwdriver]

Not at all... Several times I post a link to the origin of what's posted on CCD. & no, they most certainly are NOT "always, obviously, entirely incorrect". I know you'd like to live in an echo chamber, but that's not how it works.

Show me an example of where you have done that and I will show you how they are trying to fool everyone.

All that I need is a specific example (or two) which, knowing that site very well already, will be super easy to show @ZRX61 what it is they're doing with their "information" he should be wary of.

You mean like all those media outlets & politicians etc that pilloried Trump for Russian collusion? I seem to recall you questioning those *facts* & now you're incapable of asking ANY questions on the climate narrative.

No I do not mean that. I question all facts. The biggest question for me is typically "what evidence is there".

My first "question" is never to state what I think someone else's opinion must therefore also be. You know, like you just did.

Nor is it in any way true to state that I am incapable of questioning anything relating to climate change.

I guarantee you will not be able to back up either of those two statements about me with a single shred of evidence or find any statement made by me that supports your allegations.

It is obvious to anyone watching that you are making this up (the stew man) in a desperate attempt to avoid answering a simple question I put to you to find one single item of truth that particular group has presented.

But this has gone too far. This is no longer about "Energy Bills" and while I have tried to engage with you (and Ant), I have failed. Neither of you appear to even want to discuss the current state of climate change or how it is being manipulated to maintain the massive profits being gouged by greedy energy companies.

I'm out. Go bang some rocks together.

[Ant]

I'm out. Go bang some rocks together.

Sure thing. We are able to discuss it, but you don't like what we're suggesting, throwing it back with links from cults and not being able to refute a word. No one knows, all we know is who we choose to believe and if what we've been told in the past about the ozone layer and the barrier reefs is anything to go by, then I can probably identify it as a cult/tax/give me money thing.

I'm going to bang rocks and scream the world is ending, whilst being paid by the big energy companies charging us all 20% more on our energy for 'green' tax.

[ZRX61]

Show me an example of where you have done that and I will show you how they are trying to fool everyone.

It's really quite simple... look for any link I've posted in this thread that ISN'T from CCD & that's an example of where I've posted a link to the same source CCD used.
I would have responded to the rest of your post, but you stated you're out, so there isn't any point.

[Screwdriver]

Show me an example of where you have done that and I will show you how they are trying to fool everyone.

It's really quite simple... look for any link I've posted in this thread that ISN'T from CCD & that's an example of where I've posted a link to the same source CCD used.
I would have responded to the rest of your post, but you stated you're out, so there isn't any point.

It would be only too easy for me to find a link of yours that is demonstrably untrue but that does not help you.

Is it really that difficult for you to come up with a link on that site which supports your views and that you stand by as incontrovertible?

[ZRX61]

Show me an example of where you have done that and I will show you how they are trying to fool everyone.

It's really quite simple... look for any link I've posted in this thread that ISN'T from CCD & that's an example of where I've posted a link to the same source CCD used.
I would have responded to the rest of your post, but you stated you're out, so there isn't any point.

It would be only too easy for me to find a link of yours that is demonstrably untrue but that does not help you.

Is it really that difficult for you to come up with a link on that site which supports your views and that you stand by as incontrovertible?

Moving the goal posts doesn't help your case. You stated that EVERY link I posted is a CCD link. That's bullshit & you fucking know it.
How do you know what my views are? I rarely post more than a word or two when I post a CCD link. I don't buy all* the climate bullshit, evidently you do.
* Greta said humanity would have ended six days ago if we didn't change our ways 5 years ago... & then there's all the delusional crap from Gore/Kerry etc... Show me ONE fucking wild ass guess from these cretins than has been even close to 100% right.

[ZRX61]

https://dailycaller.com/2023/05/31/elec ... ords-2022/

Not sure where they're getting the numbers, around here bills went up by over 100% & in some cases 200+%

Oh look, a link that was found on CCD...

[Screwdriver]

Moving the goal posts doesn't help your case. You stated that EVERY link I posted is a CCD link. That's bullshit & you fucking know it.
How do you know what my views are? I rarely post more than a word or two when I post a CCD link. I don't buy all* the climate bullshit, evidently you do.
* Greta said humanity would have ended six days ago if we didn't change our ways 5 years ago... & then there's all the delusional crap from Gore/Kerry etc... Show me ONE fucking wild ass guess from these cretins than has been even close to 100% right.

They are your goalposts, I ain't touched them because you won't tell me where they are.

So if you're saying very single link you have posted is a valid source of truthful science then I will pick one and easily tear it to shreds. And I am 100% confident I can do that to your complete satisfaction too. These sites are always self inconsistent, they say one thing and "prove" it by pointing to a source that does not in fact support their conclusion.

You will then piss and moan about my cherry picking "the only one <blah>"

I know what your views are because you keep posting links from the same tiny group of nutjobs who make a living by being cc deniers. I am not even sure if you realise they are all the same people...

I have made my opinions known about Greta so you don't need to tell me what my opinion is. Same with Gore/Kerry who are literally professional liars/politicians, not scientists.

[ZRX61]

What you're claiming is this link is complete lies because it's posted on CCD...

https://climatechangedispatch.com/pm-ri ... green-fee/

But this one isn't because the Daily Torygraph posted it?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ro-unfair/

[ZRX61]

They are your goalposts, I ain't touched them because you won't tell me where they are.

So if you're saying very single link you have posted is a valid source of truthful science then I will pick one and easily tear it to shreds. And I am 100% confident I can do that to your complete satisfaction too. These sites are always self inconsistent, they say one thing and "prove" it by pointing to a source that does not in fact support their conclusion.

Once again: YOU stated that ALL the links I post are from CCD, I pointed out that's complete fucking bullshit & posted evidence that your claim is complete fucking bullshit. Then YOU moved the goalposts.
Feel free to post a quote where I said everything on CCD is "a valid source of truthful science"

[Mussels]

I've seen better mmpp.
Just don't ask me to prove it.

[Screwdriver]

What you're claiming is this link is complete lies because it's posted on CCD...

https://climatechangedispatch.com/pm-ri ... green-fee/

But this one isn't because the Daily Torygraph posted it?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ro-unfair/

Go to the back of the class. No. That is not a valid logical deduction.