3 minutes ago, EnterName said:

Sure, here you are, go for it!

Which statement (or part of) are you saying is factual?

Those with the most seen to make the least financial sacrifice or lifestyle changes. The con is the green washing with tree planting and offsetting carbons. Carbon trading and so much more. Done with tax benefits from the treasury / public purse. The flights and travel and 11 minutes up to the edge of space type guff is a nonsense. The COP stuff is a pure pith take.

23 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Which statement (or part of) are you saying is factual?

Take your pick!

They are his statements, in quotation marks for clarity.

Correct them as you see fit.

This was he just last year. Maybe this week someone can have him sit and discuss the report by his institute that has cause the controversy. Maybe someone has already got what he has to say from him and not just a spokesperson.

Maybe they can get him during one of his visits to the UK while he is not flying around the world.

Edited 2 May, 20251 yr by Ootohere

2 hours ago, EnterName said:

Take your pick!

They are his statements, in quotation marks for clarity.

Correct them as you see fit.

I don't view most of them factual. As I said:

"Ex political leader voices their opinion without any scientific facts/reasoning to back up their statement."

On 01/05/2025 at 09:04, EnterName said:

Beyond that, instead of dismissing everything he says as "opinion", it might be more convincing to take "facts" he alleges, and correct them.

You are saying it contains facts and I should "correct them". So I am asking you to provide the fact statement (individually and clearly) that you believe are credible.

End of the day, having a nuanced arguement is key in climate change discussions. But you are choosing to deliberately being obscure and create 3-liner posts polluting a thread.

23 hours ago, wyx087 said:

You are saying it contains facts and I should "correct them". So I am asking you to provide the fact statement (individually and clearly) that you believe are credible.

Ugh!

You have your opinion, and other people have their opinions.

Asserting you opinion as "facts" doesn't add weight to it.

If you disagree with any of the statements Blair made, then please feel free to state your disagreement.

23 hours ago, wyx087 said:

End of the day, having a nuanced arguement is key in climate change discussions. But you are choosing to deliberately being obscure and create 3-liner posts polluting a thread.

Yes, nuanced and detailed debate is always best.

If you recall, I am quite happy to engage in detailed posts, and have, many times.

I've gone through the CO2 issue with you before in great detail and you swerved off the issue of climate change and onto social justice. I have no idea whether those posts have been memory-holed or not, but you won't gaslight me into pretending that discussion didn't take place.

Because this place has now degenerated to the point where nuanced and detailed debates on issues that are not Skoda related have a nasty habit of disappearing, there is little point in wasting time engaging in it.

That said, you're always a pleasure to interact with @wyx087 , so I'll induge you. 😊

Blair said people were “being asked to make financial sacrifices and changes in lifestyle when they know that their impact on global emissions is minimal”

This is a fact. People do not believe the climate narrative. They know their lifestyle changes will have minimal effect on climate change and that any changes they do make will certainly be far outweighed by the total disregard for climate change shown by "developing" countries.

He said “any strategy based on either ‘phasing out’ fossil fuels in the short term or limiting consumption is a strategy doomed to fail”.

This is a fact. Our whole civilisation is pretty much built on fossil fuels. Playing eco-warrior and pretending not to use them is all well and good for virtue-signalling with like-minded people "on the right side of history", but the reality is that fossil fuels are going nowhere.

He said the current climate debate was “riven with irrationality” and suggested net zero was losing public support.

This too is a fact. I have pointed out this irrationality, and it's clear that "net zero" IS losing public support.

For you to disagree with Blair, you would have to endorse (more or less) the following contradictions to Blair's statements:

a) People are not being asked to make lifestyle changes that will have minimal effect on global emissions. To make life easier for you, I'll even take anecdotal evidence on how they're not being asked to make lifestyle changes or the lifestyle changes they're being asked to make have a measurable impact on global emissions.

b) Phasing out fossil fuels in the short term or limiting consumption is likely to succeed.

c) The current climate debate is completely rational and the public are solidly behind "net zero".

This is something you signally omitted from doing.

Now I realise I have a gift for explaining things that some people struggle to understand, but surely you could have understood what Blair was saying and refuted it without needing me to spoon-feed you an answer?

Edited 3 May, 20251 yr by EnterName

Some people seem to think they know what the people think. Trumpian!

"People do not believe the climate narrative." "This is a fact." You make up your own FACTS.

Surely some people do not believe. As for all the people all the time?

Edited 3 May, 20251 yr by Ootohere

5 hours ago, Ootohere said:

"People do not believe the climate narrative." "This is a fact." You make up your own FACTS.

It is one of the more interesting sweeping statements I've seen recently!

5 hours ago, EnterName said:

...total disregard for climate change shown by "developing" countries.

Regardless of the various arguments about the Anthropocene, I would just like to add that when these countries (emergent, may I add, rather than developing - with the exception of the hybridised China) were virtually net-zero, much of the 'developed' world was busy with the industrial revolution, followed promptly by two world wars.

I'm not entirely sure where the regard for climate change was throughout the industrial revolution. Certainly, neither WW1 or WW2 were very environmentally concious, not to mention more recent developments such as nuclear weapons, the space programme or air travel. I mean let's not forget, it wasn't China or India that invented the environmentally-crushing internal combustion or jet engine.

I'm not saying the Chinese are guilt-free with regards to climate change, but this isn't in Europe -

First, I don't expect to change your world view in this forum medium. So it's all a bit of fun exercise (and a pleasure as you eloquently puts it). As such, please don't take anything personally.

10 hours ago, EnterName said:

Ugh!

You have your opinion, and other people have their opinions.

Asserting you opinion as "facts" doesn't add weight to it.

If you disagree with any of the statements Blair made, then please feel free to state your disagreement.

This isn't the first time, you obviously have an axe to grind, please point out which bit I am asserting my opinion as fact? I simply expressed my opinion of the article you posted just like a few other posts after my post.

10 hours ago, EnterName said:

I've gone through the CO2 issue with you before in great detail and you swerved off the issue of climate change and onto social justice.

Please find the post in question and revisit the social justice if you wish. This is not gaslighting, just you keep bring it up but I don't think that word was used.

I honestly don't view climate action as social justice in literal sense. But some redistribution of wealth is inevitable to enable third world countries to skip over most polluting tech.

As for CO2 issue, I refer you to the opening post for any counter point sources.

10 hours ago, EnterName said:

Blair said people were “being asked to make financial sacrifices and changes in lifestyle when they know that their impact on global emissions is minimal”

This is a fact. People do not believe the climate narrative. They know their lifestyle changes will have minimal effect on climate change and that any changes they do make will certainly be far outweighed by the total disregard for climate change shown by "developing" countries.

Yes, it's a fact. But how much percentage of population truly believes that is questionable.

A statement can be both factual and pointless at the same time if the percentage of people it covers is very low.

10 hours ago, EnterName said:

He said “any strategy based on either ‘phasing out’ fossil fuels in the short term or limiting consumption is a strategy doomed to fail”.

This is a fact. Our whole civilisation is pretty much built on fossil fuels. Playing eco-warrior and pretending not to use them is all well and good for virtue-signalling with like-minded people "on the right side of history", but the reality is that fossil fuels are going nowhere.

This is his opinion and a questionable one. First, facts require more concrete information. Phasing out fossil fuel in the short term.... short as in today? of course that's not possible.

Hint is in the article, article talks big about carbon capture, which has a long history of failures. Its failed history are factual:

https://thebulletin.org/2022/09/plagued-by-failures-carbon-capture-is-no-climate-solution/

10 hours ago, EnterName said:

He said the current climate debate was “riven with irrationality” and suggested net zero was losing public support.

This too is a fact. I have pointed out this irrationality, and it's clear that "net zero" IS losing public support.

The idea of whether something is irrational in itself is an opinion. This cannot be more far from factual.

Is basing a statement on opinion of people a fact? Sure it is factual. But whether net zero is losing public support is debatable. Actions of a mad-orange-man cannot be construed as public support.

10 hours ago, EnterName said:

For you to disagree with Blair, you would have to endorse (more or less) the following contradictions to Blair's statements:

a) People are not being asked to make lifestyle changes that will have minimal effect on global emissions. To make life easier for you, I'll even take anecdotal evidence on how they're not being asked to make lifestyle changes or the lifestyle changes they're being asked to make have a measurable impact on global emissions.

b) Phasing out fossil fuels in the short term or limiting consumption is likely to succeed.

c) The current climate debate is completely rational and the public are solidly behind "net zero".

This is something you signally omitted from doing.

a. People, plural, are being asked to make lifestyle change that individually has minimal effect on global emissions. But billions of people's effect on global emissions are NOT minimum.

b. How short is short term? Can this same carbon capture (as the article was pushing) be brought online in meaningful quantity in same time frame?

c. I totally think the current climate "debate" is completely rational, only irrational part is posts like yours viewing it as a debate. Remain a sufficiently high percentage of public is still solidly behind net zero.

10 hours ago, EnterName said:

Now I realise I have a gift for explaining things that some people struggle to understand, but surely you could have understood what Blair was saying and refuted it without needing me to spoon-feed you an answer?

We view the world differently, it doesn't require jabs at my comprehension skills if you think I'm not getting what you are trying to get using 3 line posts.

An honest and nuanced discussion does not require this.

The climate is changing, the idea it is caused by CO2 is man-made

Edited 3 May, 20251 yr by Stonekeeper

10 hours ago, wyx087 said:

Please find the post in question and revisit the social justice if you wish. This is not gaslighting, just you keep bring it up but I don't think that word was used.

I honestly don't view climate action as social justice in literal sense. But some redistribution of wealth is inevitable to enable third world countries to skip over most polluting tech.

True, you didn't use that phrase precisely, but happily (after having seen many thread disappear as a result of the Clique's shrieking, not that I consider you a part of the Clique, you are very much your own person) I have a copy of what I'm on about. My post covers my side of the CO2 debate, too. (Handy!) I quote your post at the bottom.

You talk of "indirect imperialism and oppression", and that absolutely is a Social Justice talking point, as is your suggestion that "wealth redistribution is inevitable".

'I didn't rob that bank Your Honour, I simply redistributed the wealth!' 😉

@EnterName What did the clique shriek about that got posts taken down?

Were there reports from this clique or maybe from other members that objected to stuff being posted.

Was it your posts that were taken down?

10 hours ago, wyx087 said:

a. People, plural, are being asked to make lifestyle change that individually has minimal effect on global emissions. But billions of people's effect on global emissions are NOT minimum.

b. How short is short term? Can this same carbon capture (as the article was pushing) be brought online in meaningful quantity in same time frame?

c. I totally think the current climate "debate" is completely rational, only irrational part is posts like yours viewing it as a debate. Remain a sufficiently high percentage of public is still solidly behind net zero.

a) Yeah, but as I have shown previously, the UK could achieve "Net Zero" and it would have zero impact on "climate change". None. I remember when the climate alarmists used to tell us how much sea levels would rise, or how much the temperature would go up, and they had to stop doing that because they kept looking ridiculous. They even had to rebrand "Global Warming" as "Climate Change" because they got that wrong too.

There has always been liberal/left-leaning scaremongering which has been leverage to raise taxes and pursue a globalist agenda.

In the 1960's, oil was about to run out in the next 10 years or so.

In the 1970's, and I remember being taught this at school, another ice age was going to freeze us all in the next 10 years or so.

In the 1980's, acid rain was going to kill all plant life in the next 10 years or so.

In the 1990s, the Ozone Layer was going to be destroyed in the next 10 years or so, with catastrophic results for humanity.

In the 2000's, the glaciers were all going to melt in the next 10 years or so.

In the 2010s, sea levels were rising and low-lying land was going to be flooded in the next 10 years or so.

In the 2020's, CO2 is going to cause catastrophic climate change, in the next 10 years or so.

You don't have to be "far-right" to spot a pattern of behaviour in the scaremongering.

b) You'll have to ask Blair exactly what he meant by "short term". What does it usually mean?

c) I disagree.

Edited 4 May, 20251 yr by EnterName

9 minutes ago, Ootohere said:

@EnterName What did the clique shriek about that got posts taken down?

Were there reports from this clique or maybe from other members that objected to stuff being posted.

Was it your posts that were taken down?

I remember lots of scaremongering over Oil & Gas for the past 50 plus years.

That was the Conservative & Unionist Party & Elected Members that were doing it.

There was lots of lying going on from the 1960,s. There still is.

16 years ago. (& Bottom vid, damn leftie,)

Edited 4 May, 20251 yr by Ootohere

27 minutes ago, Ootohere said:

I remember lots of scaremongering over Oil & Gas for the past 50 plus years.

That was the Conservative & Unionist Party & Elected Members that were doing it.

There was lots of lying going on from the 1960,s. There still is.

16 years ago. (& Bottom vid, damn leftie,)

Oh yes, the faux-right quickly latched on to the trick of using a "green" agenda to raise taxes.

Well if you live another decade or 2 the stuff that was foreseen might just have happened.

Maybe a bit behind the predictions but still in one life time. Yours!

?

Where back in the 1960,s were they (who are 'they'?) predicting oil to run out in the next 10 years.

Were they not aware of the new oil that was being discovered?

?

Where were you at school in the 1970,s? A Grammar School was it?

Edited 4 May, 20251 yr by Ootohere

1976, Memories#,

Elton John & Kiki Dee Don't go breaking my heart,

& the lovely Summer was my happiest time.

For the record the post mentioned and badly displayed and misrepresented above was made by me 18 months ago. It has not been removed and is a currently ongoing topic.

As evidenced here. The topic is 'Farage debanked' in Roadside.
To be honest I'm surprised it got to him so much. All I did was mistakenly type 'you' instead of 'they'. My bad <Oopsie!>
Mine is the top post he displayed, the other is by Brisky admin and was made two and a half years before he himself started the 'Farage debanked' topic.

Edited 4 May, 20251 yr by Lee01

Tice's bit on the side shrieking from her home in oil rich, United Arab Emirates...

& nickle from Indonesia.

Also military equipment from nickle from Indonesia.

That will be defence equipment, not the armour or planes / drones to be able to kill the Chinese, or Palastinians, Ukranians.

All will be good though because once more rare earths have been mugged from the Ukraine the gas prices can drop to produce more electricity.

Uranium from the Ukraine as well. Obviously for Nuclear weapons and reactors. Not for Iran though other than threatening Iran. & China, also India. & the USA,s best friend Russia.

PS.

The dude is speaking a couple of months back.

The last Blast Furnace might close before the end of the year.

Edited 4 May, 20251 yr by Ootohere

Just for fun, I asked Grok AI to come up with some CO2 stats.

First, I asked "what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2?"

Then I asked "What percentage of atmospheric CO2 is produced by human activity? Give two answers, one as percentage of total co2 and one as percentage of atmosphere."

Finally I asked "Of that 34.6% of total atmospheric CO2 what percentage does the UK produce? Give three answers. One, answer as a percentage of the human-made CO2 (the 34.6% of atmospheric CO2 you told me about). Two, the UK CO2 production percentage as a percentage of total global CO2, and also the UK CO2 production percentage as a percentage of total atmosphere."

Even if the UK achieves net-zero, that will still leave 99.9908% of global CO2 remaining.

(Note, that 99.9908% remaining CO2 still only comprises less than 0.05% of the earth's atmospheric gases.)

If someone would be so good as to tell me how reducing global CO2 by 0.0092% will improve the climate, please tell me what impact it will have and show the data used to come to that improvement?

Edited 4 May, 20251 yr by EnterName

Mony a mickle maks a muckle.

The small nations and population of the UK has been emitting more emissions than they should be for a long time and keep on importing in crap that requires others to be emitting emissions.

Maybe it is a case for stopping or reducing where and when you can and some climate change deniers in the UK mumping and moaning are unlikely to have the Coal Fired Power Stations fired up and the coal mines reopened.

As it is they are likely to be dead in the next 70 years so there are the next generations to do what they want.