Things i really dislike or downright hate.

What???

You've been an avid denier on here of this period of global warming is entirely driven by the man made burning of fossil fuels, you've extensively argued that you didn't believe the scientific experts and it was just all a ploy by shady businessmen to get rich quick by building wind turbines and solar panels - have you suddenly forgotten what you've been saying all these months???

I wouldn't worry much about population growth if you are (as you are) in denial of global warming because the planet won't be in a position to feed and water the current population with global warming temperatures becoming too hot to sustain the growing of crops and the watering of livestock. let alone anyone else!

The first priority is obviously to stop the fire that is engulfing the house and all within in it before we tend to the kitchen garden to feed us - can't you see that?

Of course in reality we need to be doing both at the same time but if we fuck up the planet, and turn the land into desert and heat the seas to kill off all the fish, then we starve and die - or at least all the poor and frail will, so do you think those effected first  in Africa, South America, Asia, etc are just going sit on their bums and let it happen to them?

There's going to be mass migration, a break down in society as we know it.

Yes it all sounds like the plot of a film but we've seen with our own eyes a change in the weather over the last 50 years and we've watched it getting hotter and hotter just over the last 10 years, so where do you think all this is heading and what will it be like 50 years from now in our children and grandchildren's time, and then another 50 years beyond that?

We won't be around of course, so you can act like you want now - nearly everyone else does anyway - but it is your own that will suffer down the line.

I'm not batty enough to think I can change the world, or indeed that the world will change much anytime soon but I'm not stupid enough to be in denial of it and I just do my own tiny bit not add to the global warming myself - that's all I can do - and if that is only a spit in the ocean, well at least I've done what I can.

You can argue with me as much as you like but the science is the science and will happen whether you believe the experts or not.

As I keep saying, it is just as simple as that.

You can politicise, economise and monitories as much as you like but none of that is going to stop the science happening - and it has already begun.

All that we are able to do now is to lesson its impact and this is what all this is about.

You really are a complete cock. Of course burning fossil fuels emits CO2 that’s a chemical fact but the current global warming ISN'T just down to human activity as you claim and none of your “experts” have ever claimed it is either. It may be a contributory factor but there are numerous other causes that we can not control. Whatever, the simple FACT is that none of the major polluters have committed to cut emissions by 2050 and in fact haven’t even committed to their 2060 and 2070 targets, just make their best attempts to, so clearly in your words they must be flat earth deniers too, or maybe they just know more than you and don’t believe your “experts” either.

That you can be so dismissive of population growth just shows your complete inability to accept physical fact instead of estimated activity. We know the population has quadrupled in the last 100 years, that’s fact. We can estimate what may happen with the atmosphere but it isn’t fact however much you continue to bleat about it. It may well happen and the theorists may be right and we might all fry but until we do it isn’t FACT. Governments have been well aware of population growth for decades yet have taken no steps to reduce it. That my deluded friend is a FACT.

Whitesince63 wrote:You really are a complete cock.

Another predictive text error from you again I see!

Whitesince63 wrote:The tell tale sign Sluffy is that when you can’t win an argument you have to resort to insults

ALL of the reputable scientist in the world STATE that the current global warming is due to man made burning of fossil fuels because of the massive increase of the CO2 in the Earths atmosphere that can only be produced by the isotope of C02 that can be created by burning fossil fuels as explained here -

How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

This has been known for over 20 years - it's not something new and unproven or being argued over.

As for the rest of your post it is just simply hysterics from you.

Yes the world hasn't got its act together and probably never will - but that isn't the fault of the science - it will still carry on doing what it does making the world more and more inhabitable to live on.

And you miss my point entirely about population growth, which was even if the world sorts out how to deal with all the new folk being born it still doesn't stop the fact that the Earth is becoming toxic to live on and people will suffer the consequences of it - mass starvation - the planet will grow too hot to grow crops, and water livestock's to feed the worlds population.

As for me being deluded, have you ever looked in the mirror recently?

Have a nice day, (oh and get your predictive text sorted out!!!)

Sluffy wrote:

Whitesince63 wrote:You really are a complete cock.

Another predictive text error from you again I see!

Have a nice day, (oh and get your predictive text sorted out!!!)

I don’t think that was predictive text Sluffy.

karlypants wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

Whitesince63 wrote:You really are a complete cock.

Another predictive text error from you again I see!

Have a nice day, (oh and get your predictive text sorted out!!!)

I don’t think that was predictive text Sluffy.

I doubt his earlier one was either...

karlypants wrote:

I don’t think that was predictive text Sluffy.

No, it certainly wasn’t Karly and his last reply just sums up how apt it is.

What poor old deluded Sluffy can’t seem to grasp is that net zero by 2050 is a pipe dream, neither physically possible to achieve as I’ve already pointed out, nor a target the main polluters have any intention of committing to yet Sluffy still bangs on about us all frying if they don’t. Well get ready to fry then Sluffy because it ain’t going to happen.

What he also completely fails to accept is that the huge and exponential increase in the population is the main cause of exactly what he purports to be the problem. If we didn’t have four time the population we wouldn’t be burning so much fossil fuel, we wouldn’t be scything down trees for farmland to feed the population or building on flood and fire plains to house the 3xtra bodies. The one obviously affects the other but Sluffy thinks that the reason we won’t be able to feed everybody is because it’ll be too hot and not because we’ve converted the farm land into bloody wind and solar farms because nut jobs like him have been conned by the global warming, net zero brigade.

Nobody can deny the planets warming but I’m certain that the Chinese, Indians and Russians are clever enough to be able to see a disaster coming if there is one and the fact that they don’t seem remotely concerned that we’re all going to die from the heat confirms for me what I always knew, that net zero is just one huge scare story. Cue Con.

I give up with him, he’s just a prize cock.

Whitesince63 wrote:

karlypants wrote:

I don’t think that was predictive text Sluffy.

No, it certainly wasn’t Karly and his last reply just sums up how apt it is.

What poor old deluded Sluffy can’t seem to grasp is that net zero by 2050 is a pipe dream, neither physically possible to achieve as I’ve already pointed out, nor a target the main polluters have any intention of committing to yet Sluffy still bangs on about us all frying if they don’t. Well get ready to fry then Sluffy because it ain’t going to happen.

What he also completely fails to accept is that the huge and exponential increase in the population is the main cause of exactly what he purports to be the problem. If we didn’t have four time the population we wouldn’t be burning so much fossil fuel, we wouldn’t be scything down trees for farmland to feed the population or building on flood and fire plains to house the 3xtra bodies. The one obviously affects the other but Sluffy thinks that the reason we won’t be able to feed everybody is because it’ll be too hot and not because we’ve converted the farm land into bloody wind and solar farms because nut jobs like him have been conned by the global warming, net zero brigade.

Nobody can deny the planets warming but I’m certain that the Chinese, Indians and Russians are clever enough to be able to see a disaster coming if there is one and the fact that they don’t seem remotely concerned that we’re all going to die from the heat confirms for me what I always knew, that net zero is just one huge scare story. Cue Con.

I give up with him, he’s just a prize cock.

Hahaha!!!

Don't you even realise that by your own definition you've lost the argument???

Whitesince63 wrote:The tell tale sign Sluffy is that when you can’t win an argument you have to resort to insults

If you put your hand into a fire, the science tells you that it will get burnt.

People still put their hands into fires though.

The science tells us this global warming is being driven by burning fossil fuels, people still burn fossil fuels.

The science doesn't change - so the behaviour must if we done want it to be a shitty future for our decedents to live on the planet.

I can't change what will happen, people only tend think short term and care about themselves.

As for your argument that because the population has grown it directly caused global warming, well yes and no.

Yes because we have burned more fossil fuels accordingly and no because even we had the same population before it increased fourfold (I've no bothered to check your facts on this) then it will simply have taken that much longer to where it is now - the CO2 from the fossil fuels simply don't disappear, they accumulate in the atmosphere and stay there for tens of thousands of years.

It's an absurdly pointless argument anyway, you can't turn the clock back and stop people being born can you???

I assumed quite naturally that you were talking about a further increase in the current world's population - if so how do you suggest we stop the world from having any more babies???

My point which you clearly seem to have missed is that global warming WILL effect what we can grow and raise to feed and water us - it doesn't matter if there are 1,000 people on the planet or a billion, if the effects of the ongoing global warming planet can only sustain life for ten of them.

(Just to make it clear to you, these are 'pretend' numbers for illustrative purposes not 'actual' numbers of human beings on the planet!)

I might well be a prize cock but I know that the science won't change which is more than you seem to be able to grasp.

We are a tiny island with approx 60 million people on it. We have reduced our co2 output and emissions etc since the Industrial Revolution started. Fred Dibnah knocked all the chimneys down.

It is time for the likes of China and Russia to do their bit and help save the planet as we have done our bit imo and without them stepping up to the plate then the whole thing will be a waste of time.

The amount of water on earth is the same as it ever was. It gets used evaporates and comes back down again. We can’t produce any more water than we already have nor can we lose any either.

The problem is that earth is far too populated!

Did you know that water is extra-terrestrial to Earth?

Not only that, water can not be destroyed!

Spooky eh?

As for overpopulation - you need to acquaint yourself with Malthusianism theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism#:~:text=History-,Malthus'%20theoretical%20argument,like%20increase%20in%20food%20production.

Sluffy wrote:Did you know that water is extra-terrestrial to Earth?

Not only that, water can not be destroyed!

Spooky eh?

I’m not sure what you mean?

Is this another one of your clown posts today?

karlypants wrote:

Sluffy wrote:Did you know that water is extra-terrestrial to Earth?

Not only that, water can not be destroyed!

Spooky eh?

I’m not sure what you mean?

Is this another one of your clown posts today?

Clown posts???

No, I'm being entirely serious.

Water is extra-terrestrial

Multiple geochemical studies have concluded that asteroids are most likely the primary source of Earth's water.[38] Carbonaceous chondrites–which are a subclass of the oldest meteorites in the Solar System–have isotopic levels most similar to ocean water

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_water_on_Earth#:~:text=Multiple%20geochemical%20studies%20have%20concluded,most%20similar%20to%20ocean%20water.

Water can not be destroyed

The Hydrological Cycle: Water Is Neither Created Nor Destroyed, It Is Merely Transformed. The title of this article paraphrases the famous sentence of French chemist Antoine Lavoisier in his “Law of Conservation of Mass.” He sustained that mass is neither created nor destroyed in chemical reactions.

https://qatium.com/blog/water-is-neither-created-nor-destroyed-only-transformed/


Also if you want a few more watery facts...


Whilst 71% of the surface of the Earth is covered by water, the water only accounts for less than 0.023% of the Earth's mass.

Or to put it another way 99.977% of the Earth's mass contains no water!

If you collect ALL the water in the world a make it into a sphere it would look tiny - see picture below.

If you took ALL the fresh water in the world that is drinkable and put it into a sphere it would look tiny next to the sphere in the sentence above.

And if you took ALL the water we actually can drink (most of it is in the ice caps or under the ground in the soil) and put it into a sphere, you wouldn't be able to see it on the picture below without blowing it up to full size!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_water_on_Earth#:~:text=Multiple%20geochemical%20studies%20have%20concluded,most%20similar%20to%20ocean%20water.

And that of all the water on Earth (and in our atmosphere) only 2.5% of it is drinkable (meaning able to be drunk - the rest is salt water) and of that 69% of it is in glaciers, a further 30% under the ground (the water table), leaving just 1.2% able to be drunk - or in other words just 0.03% of all the water in the world is actually drinkable at any one time.



The World's Water - Distribution of Earth's Water

The Earth is a watery place. But just how much water exists on, in, and above our planet? About 71 percent of the Earth's surface is water-covered, and the oceans hold about 96.5 percent of all Earth's water. Water also exists in the air as water vapor, in rivers and lakes, in icecaps and glaciers, in the ground as soil moisture and in aquifers, and even in you and your dog.

This bar chart shows how almost all of Earth's water is saline and is found in the oceans. Of the small amount that is actually freshwater, only a relatively small portion is available to sustain human, plant, and animal life.

In the first bar, notice how only 2.5% of Earth's water is freshwater - the amount needed for life to survive.
The middle bar shows the breakdown of freshwater. Almost all of it is locked up in ice and in the ground. Only a little more than 1.2% of all freshwater is surface water, which serves most of life's needs.
The right bar shows the breakdown of surface freshwater. Most of this water is locked up in ice, and another 20.9% is found in lakes. Rivers make up 0.49% of surface freshwater. Although rivers account for only a small amount of freshwater, this is where humans get a large portion of their water from.

https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/distribution-water-and-above-earth#:~:text=The%20Earth%20is%20a%20watery,percent%20of%20all%20Earth's%20water.


Spheres showing:(1) All water (largest sphere over western U.S., 860 miles (1,385 kilometers) in diameter)(2) Fresh liquid water in the ground, lakes, swamps, and rivers (mid-sized sphere over Kentucky, 169.5 miles (272.8 kilometers) in diameter), and (3) Fresh-water lakes and rivers (smallest sphere over Georgia, 34.9 miles i(56.2 kilometers) in diameter).

PS you need to view the picture at full size to be able to see how tiny sphere 3 (the water that we actually drink to survive on) actually is!



AND the biggest watery fact of all...

As far as we know, no life can exist anywhere without it!!!

Sluffy, yet again you attempt to completely swerve the real facts. Population growth is the biggest problem this planet faces. Unless people stop giving birth it will continue to grow exponentially and I don’t expect there’s any chance of that happening so instead of fretting about some spurious and disputed projections of the earth frying why not instead concentrate on what WILL happen unless something is done to alleviate it? Of course unlike the green, net zero scam there’s no money in facing up to the population situation is there? As I’ve said to you before. If you make the lie big enough and state it often enough people will believe you. At least some will, just like you. Ever been ad? You have been for sure. More and more people are beginning to see they’ve been conned, it’s just taking you a bit longer than most.

You are absolutely bonkers!!!

If you ever actually read what I posted instead of immediately going off into your right wing ideology beliefs then you would have seen that I have said from the start that population growth is an issue that needs facing...

Sluffy wrote:I wouldn't worry much about population growth if you are (as you are) in denial of global warming because the planet won't be in a position to feed and water the current population with global warming temperatures becoming too hot to sustain the growing of crops and the watering of livestock. let alone anyone else!

The first priority is obviously to stop the fire that is engulfing the house and all within in it before we tend to the kitchen garden to feed us - can't you see that?

Of course in reality we need to be doing both at the same time...

...but clearly, as I've said, if we don't do anything about global warming in time them it doesn't matter what size the Earth's population is if it can no longer sustain life on the planet anymore, no matter how successful we might have been in slowing down future population growth.

Is there???

And how stupid of you to first state this...

Whitesince63 wrote:Unless people stop giving birth it will continue to grow exponentially and I don’t expect there’s any chance of that happening...

...then in your next breath say this...

Whitesince63 wrote:so instead of fretting about some spurious and disputed projections of the earth frying why not instead concentrate on what WILL happen unless something is done to alleviate it?

So your solution is to stop have people having babies - which you say there is no chance of happening - then carry on to say we have to do something to alleviate that problem - so what will that be then???

Kill everyone off when they reach 25 years old perhaps???



And to show your total insanity you state that you believe man made global warming through the burning fossil of fuels to be a "lie" yet you presumably want the euthanasia of babies or people over a certain age to be compulsory (because we can do something about 'that') and is seemingly preferable to the need to have wind turbines and solar panels blighting the view out of your living room window (to do something towards reducing global warming)!!!

And you think I'm the one that has been "ad" (had).

You urgently need your bumps felt mate!!!

Sluffy, you really should actually read what people say, keep it in the context it was written and at least attempt to understand some may have a different view. You are so totally averse to accepting being wrong that you have to fly off in a paddy every time trying to prove the same point over and over again that you really do make yourself look a complete fool. Look, I know you passionately believe that unless we stop burning fossil fuels the world is in for a bleak and roasting future but I’m afraid that I and an increasing number of other people recognise that the situation is nowhere near as dangerous as you and your net zero evangelists claim.

Let’s just for a minute say I 100% believe you. What possible difference can I or you or any of us in these islands do to make a jot of difference when countries like China, India and Russia continue their current actions. In fact they’re not just continuing but increasing so what might that tell you? That they are stupid, right wing, flat earth myopics? Hasn’t it occurred to you yet that just maybe these countries are not swayed by your argument and have a different view? Oh of course they’ll publicly make the right noises but they don’t really believe and are just following the line to keep their trade alive. Naturally they’ll also move some generation to renewables because it makes perfect sense to do so but only a pace and quantity that suits them whilst they produce the bulk of the green infrastructure using coal and gas that they export to mugs like us who could do it ourselves but would breach our net zero targets.

It’s bloody madness and you and people like you are responsible for it by being suckered into the propaganda that those who benefit have beaten into you. Net zero is not happening however much you believe it will. People won’t accept heat pumps, the majority can’t afford and don’t want EV’s. Nobody wants to look out of their window and see the countryside littered with windmills and Pylons or the green fields of previous farmland covered in solar panels. Everybody accepts that ultimately we must find an alternative to oil and gas but that alternative isn’t here yet and may not be for many years.

I’ve no doubt that whoever our government is they will continue to attempt to force us to move away from fossil fuels although I have a feeling that when Labour do sadly get in they will find all the preaching about the Green New Deal is a good bit harder to force on people than pronouncing it in opposition. The people don’t want it, won’t accept it and will rise up against it. The world isn’t going to fry, food will still be produced and people will be fed but unfortunately by then I won’t be here to say I told you so. My grandkids will though if they’ve not been transported to the moon as there’s no room here for them?

I'm sure you make things up in your head.

I've never once stated I was for net zero, as I won't be around whether we hit it or not.

I've never said China, India, etc will stop using fossil fuels or will hit their targets of keeping the worlds temperature from raising by more than 1.5C by the end of the century (2100).

I've never once said the world will be covered in wind turbines and solar panels.

I've never once claimed that the UK achieving net zero would achieve much if anything to stop the overall global warming.

All this and more is what you've somehow have made up in that head of yours as to what you THINK I'd said - or more likely didn't bother yourself to actually reading what I wrote in the first place.

I've simply said global warming is irrefutably man made by the burning of fossil fuel - science proves that beyond doubt due to the unique way CO2 isotopes are formed, solely from the burning of plant derived fossil fuels - and this increase of this form of CO2 into the worlds atmosphere being the sole driver of the global warming event now happening.

I simply said thereafter that the science describes the future if nothing is done and that the sooner the world acts to mitigate the reduction in fossil fuels consumption the less bad in will be for those having to live with the effects of the impact of the Earth's climate changes in their lifetimes - ie our children and their children's children for countless generations to come.

You have been foolishly in denial of the science and clearly believe the right wing propaganda you obviously read and follow, that this is some form of a corporate lie in order to make mega rich people even richer by manufacturing wind turbines, solar panels and heat pumps.

One of us is clearly raving bonkers.

It isn't me.

Sluffy, there’s nothing right wing about plain common sense. Maybe you ought to try it sometime.

Whitesince63 wrote:Sluffy, there’s nothing right wing about plain common sense. Maybe you ought to try it sometime.

Well when you base your common sense on the premise that man made global warming through the burning of fossil fuel is fake news - as you do - then it ceases to be common sense at all.