F1technical.net

I'm sorry Andres, does the truth hurt? In first world countries robust discussion is permitted. Women are allowed to express opinions.

The lying toad makes three main claims

1 recent flooding in UK is due to climate change

2 renewables are 90% cheaper than fossil fuels

3 People support action for climate change

Her rebuttals

1 IPCC technical report say they aren't.

2 No they aren't

3 Yes but they aren't willing to pay for it.

My comments

1 Read the technical report, she's right, he's wrong
2 Chris Bowen's plan for Australia will cost $13 Billion per year, to replace a 2 GW coal power station every year which makes a profit at $0.8 billion dollars running costs a year. When Bowen's plan is complete it will cost the same amount to keep running as panels batteries and turbines all have a finite life.
3 in every poll when people are asked if they care about climate change they say yes, but when asked to pay for it to any significant extent the majority say no. https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/charts/c ... nge-action as an example https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/charts/w ... -solutions

Greg Locock wrote: ↑

06 Nov 2022, 23:50

I'm sorry Andres, does the truth hurt?

Indeed, you just need to read or hear any comment from the multiple naysayers in this forum, or in real world, who can´t accept CC despite the multiple evidence in every single aspect you look at it

Greg Locock wrote: ↑

06 Nov 2022, 23:50

In first world countries robust discussion is permitted. Women are allowed to express opinions.

Obviously, the fact you consider this as something to point out tell me you´re not very used to robust discussion, or to women expressing opinions...


This woman uses a falacy wich petrol companies and naysayers have been using for decades, and have only caused a huge damage as people without too much interest or knownledge have assumed they know what they´re talking about, when they´re not so they´re confusing/manipulation a lot of people. The falacy is, if you cannot prove those changes in climate are resposibility of humankind, I´ll assume CC is false. Lack of evidence as the evidence of the opposite, a pretty common falacy. Every sensible person with a brain should think, if CC is a fact and there´s any posibility it´s responsibility of humankind, we humans must do whatever we can to stop it, as if true we can ruin the planet we live on.

Anyone with a brain, or with any technical knownledge, knows certainty is not always possible, but if things into play are important, you must assume that possibility as a reality to be on the safe side and not cause irremediable damage.

It´s called common sense, but it´s way less common than it should be Reading or watching people in 2022 using this falacy yet to convice people CC is not a problem, is like watching videos of flat earth enthusiast

This said, the guest is not very skilled defending his position, that´s true, but the interviewer does not let him explain himself and even stop him when he´s trying, abusing the guest from her position, something pretty disgusting from a TV program.

"tell me you´re not very used to robust discussion, or to women expressing opinions... "

Sorry pal, my comment I was in response to your whining "Really disgusting interview and interviewer". and that she should be sacked.

He lied. He made 3 principal arguments which are demonstrably false. You think he is lying in a good cause so you stick up for him.

So far as climate change goes, as it happens yes, I think CO2 has caused about half the warming we've seen since 1950, so according to the idiotic Cook survey, that means I'm a believer in the new religion. But I'm not. I think warming is beneficial, and adaptation is a much better solution than running around gluing myself to paintings.

whoa what happened there?

Greg Locock wrote: ↑

07 Nov 2022, 23:26

Sorry pal

No worries, all of us go a bit over the line from time to time, inlcuding myself, sorry for my part too

Greg Locock wrote: ↑

07 Nov 2022, 23:26

I think warming is beneficial

Then no point in discussing anymore. Warming might be beneficial if it occurs in a normal timeframe (thousands or million years), but if it occurs in decades it´s not. This simple difference change it all at a huge scale


I´ll stop here as its OT as Hollus just pointed out

Ironically, a very dry presentation, why would that be?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severn_Barrage

There have been 'plans' for a barrage on the Severn for about 30 years. Everyone gets together and decides its a good thig, then go home and forget it

The Severn is (I believe ) the second highest tidal range in the world ( after Fundy bay Cananda )

"Space bosses are to investigate whether electricity could be beamed wirelessly from space into millions of homes.

The European Space Agency will this week likely approve a three-year study to see if having huge solar farms in space could work and be cost effective.

The eventual aim is to have giant satellites in orbit, each able to generate the same amount of electricity as a power station.

ESA's governing council is to consider the idea at its Paris HQ on Tuesday."

Which'll make the (bird) death toll from your average windmill look like chicken feed.

Greg Locock wrote: ↑

24 Nov 2022, 11:27

Which'll make the (bird) death toll from your average windmill look like chicken feed.

True, but that´s because the death toll for windmills is irrelevant with modern windmills

Interesting. And anecdotally I get at least 2 birds a year killed by flying into the windows of my house. So yes, it's just a meme, and i'd fallen for it.

He slipped up on the "no moving parts" part but nonetheless...

zero actual reference points on that video. As much as I like that channel, that one is fluff.