Hi All,

Came across this analysis, I thought you might like to see it.  I think it shows some unanswered questions for our future for fueling our lives.

What's Wrong with Wind and Solar? | PragerU

Thanks Vince.  A realists view of reality.  Similarly no one wants to tell the truth about hydrogen and the term now being used is zero local emissions

There is no reasoned analysis, for that you need supportable facts with references. This is just statements & claims without recognition of the whole picture. The video is extremely flawed & just fossil fuel industry spin. 

See https://thegreynomads.activeboard.com/t69253365/food-for-thought/ 

Any contrary view to climate catastrophe gets pushed aside by the old fossil fuel industry BS by the green movement. It is called discussion, many people believe this without being funded by the terrible fuel companies which the woke and greens can't handle, anything they don't like is slammed, never given air time and shut down.

The "whole picture" is that we are being led into a very bad situation by the Climate Cult and I can't stand by and watch the impending economic train wreck without saying anything, I owe it to my kids and grandkids who will inherit a catstrophe, not climate, the economy of the world! (except some countries who are allowed to carry on regardless and become hugely powerful)

As I said in a previous post, from my web research the atmosphere is 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, Argon 0.9%, the remaining 0.1% is Trace gasses of which water vapour is 95% and Carbon 3%.
Man-made carbon is 3 to 4% of Carbon emissions.
So our world is being sent back to the stone age because we are arguing about 3 to 4% of 3% of 0.1% that is catastrophically, all of a sudden, going to fry us all? As a person involved in engineering all his life I just don't believe it.

And if you want to see spin, have a look back over the years at Al Gore's climate catastrophe talks, Prof. Tim Flannery's predictions and even our King's beliefs, most of which never happened and in my opinion will never happen, they just keep being proven wrong as the passage of time shows the folly of their so called science. If you look at those predictions we would be 10 feet underwater by now.  

Greta Thunberg five years ago, " climate change will wipe out all of humanity" over the next five years "unless we stop using fossil fuels".

-- Edited by vince56 on Tuesday 14th of March 2023 11:12:01 AM

Count me in too Vince.

vince56 wrote:

---

Greta Thunberg five years ago, " climate change will wipe out all of humanity" over the next five years "unless we stop using fossil fuels".

---

 I understand she deleted that post a week or two past.

All those quotes come from one source: Prager "University".

It was founded by conservative media commentator, Dennis Prager in 2009, and is owned by him.

Its sole function is to "create five-minute videos from an American conservative perspective" and describes itself as " an educational media platform dedicated to promoting pro-American values" - whatever that means!

It does not conduct or instigate scientific research. It is purely a propaganda device for conservative opinions. It is obviously masquerading as a "university" in order to enhance its credibility by aligning its title and commentators to the academic world. Quite a sham, really.

Hardly a credible source of information either, but still an influence to those willing to be brainwashed into the conservative propaganda regime. Flat earth, anyone?

Well done on your intensive research and analytical skills, guys.

Stick to travel topics, maybe, rather than make fools of yourselves gleefully parroting quotes from dubious sources.

No apology needed.....

Whaoooo, here comes the attack!

My last reply had NOTHING to do with Pragur, it was from several totally different sources in my library and one on the web, several creditable sources indeed. Wrong.

Thank you for congratulating on the intensive research and analytical skills, if only you were not trying to be condescending. Poor effort BTW.

It IS a travel topic as it is an area that will greatly change the way we all tow our vans and travel in general, probably one of the most controversial regarding our towing and travel future. so.... wrong again.

I don't backtrack at all on what I wrote the reply shows typical inaccurate statements and half-baked assumptions.

Easy to attack I guess, if you have nothing reasonable to add.

Thanks to all the positive replies, it is nice to see positive input these days, some are so eager to be negative...........

And Errrr.... No apology wanted. I won't be responding to certain replies from here on.

Have a look at this for some sensible thinking, (from a another creditable source)  Democrats Want an Electric Car Mandate When 80% Of Our Electricity Comes From Fossil Fuels - YouTube

vince56 wrote:

---

which the woke and greens can't handle, 

 -----------------------------------------------------------------

If you want to be listened to, & I presume you do if you are genuine about the concerns you express for the future, then you need to consider those who you want to listen.

Using language as quoted does nothing to get you heard. It just places you in the disrespectful mob of folk willing to aggressively tell anyone who doesn't share your view that they are wrong. 

Gary and Barb wrote:

---

All those quotes come from one source: Prager "University".

It was founded by conservative media commentator, Dennis Prager in 2009, and is owned by him.

Its sole function is to "create five-minute videos from an American conservative perspective" and describes itself as " an educational media platform dedicated to promoting pro-American values" - whatever that means!

It does not conduct or instigate scientific research. It is purely a propaganda device for conservative opinions. It is obviously masquerading as a "university" in order to enhance its credibility by aligning its title and commentators to the academic world. Quite a sham, really.

Hardly a credible source of information either, but still an influence to those willing to be brainwashed into the conservative propaganda regime. Flat earth, anyone?

Well done on your intensive research and analytical skills, guys.

Stick to travel topics, maybe, rather than make fools of yourselves gleefully parroting quotes from dubious sources.

No apology needed.....

---

A very "wordy" post however, lacking in proof of facts, Something of which you are not alone in on this interesting subject. More an emotional commentary. I will add, there does appear to be a lacking of intensive research and analytical skills included.  but your opinion just the same. Which fortunately we all (on the is forum} enjoy.

You may refer to the heading of this section which is "General", so not necessarily just about travel.   I also add that comments such as "fools" is a sign of frustration when no proof of post facts is forth coming. Using the word propaganda is always a good fall back position though 

Cheers 

Cuppa wrote:

---

vince56 wrote:

---

which the woke and greens can't handle, 

 -----------------------------------------------------------------

If you want to be listened to, & I presume you do if you are genuine about the concerns you express for the future, then you need to consider those who you want to listen.

Using language as quoted does nothing to get you heard. It just places you in the disrespectful mob of folk willing to aggressively tell anyone who doesn't share your view that they are wrong. 

 

---

Does your comment /criticism include a fellow members referral to some as "fools parroting", above. Very important, in my opinion to demonstrate balance and fairness. 

vince56 wrote:

---

As I said in a previous post, from my web research the atmosphere is 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, Argon 0.9%, the remaining 0.1% is Trace gasses of which water vapour is 95% and Carbon 3%.
Man-made carbon is 3 to 4% of Carbon emissions.
So our world is being sent back to the stone age because we are arguing about 3 to 4% of 3% of 0.1% that is catastrophically, all of a sudden, going to fry us all? 

_____________________________

Am I correct that you consider your 'web research',and the conclusions you draw from it are something which should be considered superior knowledge to the consensus of world science in regard to climate change?  

Sorry Cuppa

Am I correct that you consider your 'web research',and the conclusions you draw from it are something which should be considered superior knowledge to the consensus of world science in regard to climate change?  

---

 But the predictions have failed to become fact, the entire world will make zero difference if China and India are not part of the so called solution 

Here's a selection of filed predictions

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

vince56 wrote:

---

There are just as many, if not more, scientists who disagree with the climate change "consensus", the issue for us ALL is that you don't hear from them.

What evidence is there for this? Links please

If they say anything they get cancelled or simply are ignored by those with a vested interest in keeping the climate hysteria going, after all they are making a bucket of money on subsidized wind turbines and solar panels. (which we taxpayers pay dearly for)

 Scientists from all fields of endeavour. through a documented & overseen process have reached a concensus about man made climate change, based not just on recent evidence, but evidence over the past 100 years of scientific endeavour. Scientists are employed in many ways. If any had evidence which contradicted the consensus in a meaningful way do you really think that there would be no-one willing to financially support them? If as you suggests there are as many , if not more who have reason & evidence to suggest that climate change is not as the consesus suggest, that it would be possible to keep thousands & thousands of dissenters right around the globe silent? Just not possible. Conspiracy theory stuff!

My conclusion is that I don't believe the "consensus", I think it has not been proven and I think there are many powerful people who maintain the rage for personal gain. The climate change "experts" have been proven wrong time and again.

Your conclusion is your conclusion, you are able to think whatever you choose, but in light of all the evidence contrary, I think it no more likely than the the existence of the tooth fairy. 

Also, I can guarantee if you were to run a vote on this site (followed by older people who haven't been indoctrinated as a child), the silent majority who don't believe all this CC stuff would be in the vast majority.

You may well be correct sadly. The one thing which keeps me positive about the future is that it wont be fixed belief oldies who will call the shots. 

As I say, you just don't hear the opposing views of the silent majority or the opposing scientists, they want to keep their jobs.

And, why is it a necessity for me to follow the consensus? I have my own view and I'm entitled to it! Are you suggesting that anyone with an opinion or view that doesn't meet the "consensus of world science in regard to climate change' (your opinion) should be shut down and not listened to?

Yes you have every right to have your own view, just as a child is entitled to believe in the tooth fairy. Believing doesn't make it real however, at least not without evidence to prove it. I listen to you, as do others here when you contribute your thoughts. I see no-one trying to shut anyone down, but I don't share your beliefs & I think you are wrong. if you are prepared to share your thoughts then you must be prepared for disagreement. But it is reasonable to expect that any disagreement will be civil & not made personal. 

My research doesn't have to be considered by anyone, I use it to help understand the issues. Issues that simply don't add up.

I understand that but you posted for the considerattion of others & in order to take your conclusions seriously, then at a minimum the detail of how the conclusion was reached is needed. 

An example  'just as many, if not more scientists disagree with the climate change census'. Where is the info on this on which to form that conclusion. I find it difficult to believe that I haven't stumbled across this gobsmackingly critical evidence if it is out there somewhere.  And I'm even more disbelieving that if there were indeed evidence to even suggest this, that every climate sceptic around the globe wouldn't be making maximum use of it. 

---

vince56 wrote:

---

Cuppa, one simple question, prove that man-made CO2 is destroying the planet, that 3 to 4% of 3% of 0.1% is tipping us into oblivion. If you prove it I will believe it.

---

I take it you cannot provide any evidence about half or more of the worlds scientists staying quiet then? 

As for me proving anything like that, you are asking the wrong person , I'm not a scientist, just someone prepared to believe the conclusions from the best source we have. 

Cuppa wrote:

---

vince56 wrote:

---

Cuppa, one simple question, prove that man-made CO2 is destroying the planet, that 3 to 4% of 3% of 0.1% is tipping us into oblivion. If you prove it I will believe it.

---

 

I take it you cannot provide any evidence about half or more of the worlds scientists staying quiet then? 

As for me proving anything like that, you are asking the wrong person , I'm not a scientist, just someone prepared to believe the conclusions from the best source we have. 

vince56 wrote:

---

I could provide "evidence" if I were to spend a lot of time going through the thousands of opposing views and spell them out to you, it would be simple but time consuming. Maybe if you are so keen you could do it.
It is your opinion that the people you choose to believe are the "best source we have", I certainly don't agree, as spelled out by aussie1's post, these guys get it wrong time and again and you continue to believe it? Up to you but I don't.
Harvard Uni, one of those best sources? Professor James Anderson, Harvard, circa 2017, "The chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Antarctic in 2022 is essentially zero".
I don't think we have much to gain in the touche' exchanges as there are millions of opinions and posts, you believe what you want and I will keep watching the outrageous predictions crash and burn as time proves them wrong.
Cheers

---

 "If you prove it I will believe it"  were your words. It was as you have found out quite an unreasonable expectation, because as you subsequently say  I could provide "evidence" if I were to spend a lot of time going through the thousands of opposing views and spell them out to you, it would be simple but time consuming" 

I disagree with you that it would be simple - indeed far from it,  but I expect you knew that. It is however 'simple' enough for me to accept the veracity of the conclusions, in plain English, from the scientific consensus on climate change. 

"It is your opinion that the people you choose to believe are the "best source we have"  Yup, it most certainly is. Because of the peer reviewed scientific process utilised worldwide. A process in which if anyone were to not take rigorous steps to verify their information & conclusions  that their peers would call them out as wrong or as charlatans. Basically there are many safeguards to ensure that the information is the best it can be. That is fact, not an opinion. 

Your use of a prediction in an unprecedented situation turning out to be wrong as a reason to ignore the science generally, as I have posted on the concurrent 'Food for thought' thread is essentially an attempt to pick fault. Akin to calling a brand new car absolute rubbish because there is a tiny piece of loose stitching in one of the seats. 

"I don't think we have much to gain in the touche' exchanges"  I think you are right that we (you & I) have little to gain as you suggest.

I nevertheless consider such exchanges worthwhile, not for us, but for the audience reading them.

There will continue to be those in the 'audience' who's views remain unchanged, but I hope that there will also be those who recognise that we do actually have reason to be concerned about climate change, & that those who suggest that all is fine & no action is needed  are unable to support their stance, & that their rhetoric is a danger to everyone so long as anyone believes them.

For this reason my disputing of the claims made by any climate deniers really has zero to do with either them or me. It is in my view essentially a 'public service' for us all, even those who say we don't need it. I can think of many things I'd rather be doing than debating & arguing with folk whom it's often clear are never going to listen to reason. It's hard work & time consuming. I don't expect to change the views of those involved, but I do think it is worthwhile to expose their reasoning (or lack of it)  evidenced by the almost inevitable resorting to attacking the messenger, or source rather than having reliable sources of counter argument themselves. 

Comments claiming things that, were they true, would be eminently provable, but are unable to be shown to be true, are common in these sort of exchanges. Exposing this is gold regardless of whether those involved have beliefs which remain unchanged.