Emissions, Global warming or a scam

[Haironyourchest]

On 05/04/2019 at 00:14, onetruth said:

Climate-change deniers: my Arbtalk app informs me that this topic is now "Hot".

Yeah...I been taking a sabbatical from the internet last few days - phone trouble.. had a long rant on the other Global Warming thread. Heard a thing on YouTube the other day that made sense to me, to paraphrase: The most powerful institutions in the world are banks. Banks care about money, and nothing else. Banks make money by lending money intelligently. They have the resources to hire people who are very very good at making accurate predictions about the long term future. Yes, they occasionally get it wrong, but mostly they get it right, or they wouldn't have such vast wealth. Banks have been, and continue to invest in seafront realestate and development to the tune of trillions a year. Some of these investments are decades long loans. Twenty years ago the "climate scientists" were telling us many of these seafront areas would be underwater by the year 2000. They were wrong. In 2000, they were saying they would be underwater by 2020. We're not there yet, 8 months to go, but I think it's safe to say, they were wrong. A lot of angst was suffered for years by millions of people because of predictions that were just plain wrong. And the banks knew it the whole time. The kept investing, and continue to invest, in seafront development. Just a thought...

[Haironyourchest]

26 minutes ago, Big J said:

You are of course wrong.

 

Much like the weather forecast, it's much easier to predict what will happen. The exact timescale is trickier to pin down. The effects of climate change are self-evident and abundantly obvious. To deny it puts you on a level with flat earthers.

Tell that to a bank with billions tied up in seafront development. You really think they can't afford to pay for the real scientists and the true forecast? They can't afford not to. Bottom line, the banks can't afford to be suckered. The "climate scientists" were wrong 40 odd years ago and the banks knew it.

[breffni]

Ok i believe the random lad on the internet over the vast majority of the science community. He watched a youtube video. 

[Richard 1234]

54 minutes ago, Big J said:

You are of course wrong.

 

Much like the weather forecast, it's much easier to predict what will happen. The exact timescale is trickier to pin down. The effects of climate change are self-evident and abundantly obvious. To deny it puts you on a level with flat earthers.

How much good is chopping trees down doing the planet?.............

[Richard 1234]

2 minutes ago, Big J said:

Part of a sustainable, carbon-neutral industry supporting thousands of local jobs. If you want locally sourced firewood, biofuel, timber for planking, construction and fencing, there has to be local forestry. And as part of that process, someone needs thin and harvest the trees at the appropriate stages.

 

But I suspect you already know that and are playing devil's advocate in order to get a rise out of me ?

Sort of. It falls down when trees aren’t replaced.

if they are not replaced they are not carbon neutral.

i don’t believe for a minute that all trees harvested are replaced 

do you replace each tree you cut down? Genuine question 

[Haironyourchest]

1 minute ago, Big J said:

I do not, no. All trees felled in a forestry setting are subject to felling licences approved by the Forestry Commission. All felling ops that I do are either thinning or clearfell. If thinning, replacement is not required as you're felling to favour the better trees, improve the crop and increase the volume of standing trees on site (crowded trees don't grow well). If clearfelling, replanting is almost always required. We have two large clearfells later this year, both of which will be replanted with more trees than are felled.

 

 

It may be carbon neutral if the are replaced, but what about the CO2 you produce to process them? Fuel, machinery - which produces CO2 when the metal for it is mined, smelted, fabricated, transported. What about the money you make from your trade? What do you spend it on? Do you donate all of your profit it to a tree planting charity? Fact is, everyone we do to improve our lives generates CO2 or "carbon"... I just don't believe the hype anymore, so I not bothered, but I feel badly for the folks that do believe and feel guilty about it. Freedom is a wonderful thing, if you're free to enjoy it without guilt. 

[Khriss]

Might just 'point out here that trees use carbon dioxide to grow....' it's called photosynthesis.... K

Edited April 8, 2019 by Khriss
Lots of things produce carbon dioxide an trees like that.

[Haironyourchest]

8 minutes ago, Big J said:

Carbon neutrality is practically impossible, and I don't aspire to it. Nevertheless, it's imperative that we all make an effort. 

 

I have heavy machinery, I used diesel and consumables, but I feel that my profession is more carbon neutral than most. 

 

What you call freedom, most would classify as willful ignorance. 

Willful ignorence is when we choose to ignore evidence that is available to us, when we are trying to descern the truth of a matter. There is irrifutable evidence on the skeptic side that the models were quite wrong, data deliberately fudged and ignored, ice core samples that refute CO2 driving warming etc etc. I made an effort to actually look at the evidence from the "wrong side" of the issue. Further research convinced me that the elements on the "warmist" side were and are being dishonest, in order to further a political agenda.

[Richard 1234]

17 minutes ago, Khriss said:

Might just 'point out here that trees use carbon dioxide to grow....' it's called photosynthesis.... K

And lock it inside the tree.

 

trees cut for building things out of is ok I think as the co2 staying locked inside it trees cut for burning I’m not sure about.

i do think trees could be carbon neutral if enough were to be planted.

just my thoughts.

 

 

[openspaceman]

45 minutes ago, Richard 1234 said:

i do think trees could be carbon neutral if enough were to be planted.

They can be carbon negative if turned to charcoal and buried.