Comments by "antonyjh1234" (@antonyjh1234) on "Why have the Tories given up on climate change?" video.

Because change of society completely to a controlled low consumption model is the only way to impact the climate in a positive way.
15
99.97% of the mass of the atmosphere is only 100k or 62 mile high. If you go above three and a half k you would need breathing apparatus, the point is every bit of stored carbon we are using in the range of 100 million 42 gallon drums daily is being put into this tiny sliver of atmosphere. In a tank of diesel is the same amount of energy as my total electrical energy for 3,2 months in an Australian summer with the air con going 24-7, if somebody uses a tank a week for a year that is equal to 17 years of my electrical energy. We put this carbon in and it's not 0.04% of the atmosphere, all this mass is around us because of gravity, carbon gas mass, when it's parts per million, it is how many there are per million molecules. One million molecules is a really tiny amount of space, there are trillions and trillions just in the kilogram of air and all the square metres above you. We are now at around 430 molecules of carbon for each and every million sized parcel of air. Now, radiation from the sun hits the earth, this heat needs to leave again, it travels through us to space again, if there are trillions and trillions of absolute squillions of more molecules that can absorb this heat, it slows down the transfer of heat, and you can not add to any system without it meaning something. The meaning something in this case is when God was supposedly around he didn't have an Esky so he left all the ice, that cools us to this temperature, roughly what we have had 15,000 years, he/she left it all out in the open. Now we both believe that you can't add energy/heat to a system like that without it meaning something. They can of course work out what is coming and the way we are going it will be total destruction of everything you've known, should you call that alarmist I am not sure but it's the speed we are talking about this time. The temps they think we are going to go to because of this increased forced radiation has been on the earth before, and plants and animals lived. That time it took 700,000 years to reach that temp, this time they reckon we will do it in one thousand years, to a temp that nothing alive today has experienced and might mean instead of the average temperature of the earth being 15 it might be 30. As we have taken millions of years to adapt and humans are now alive at a temperature that no human has experienced, in fact 3 million years, this isn't alarmist nonsense, this is something the sooner older people stop saying things they can't explain their way out of logically, the better. I understand change is hard considering something that is classed as normal your whole life has to change but the truth is there if you want to see it. The powers that be would rather lie and keep everyone slaves than lose or change themselves, they are more likely afraid of total collapse if they finally told the real truth. The truth is windmills aren't going to stop the next 30 years because of the lag affect and of course for you that will be ok, myself probably as well. I will say again, we can not add energy to a system without it meaning something, just because you might not fully understand the whole issue does not in any way mean this is climate alarmism, what you should be more concerned with is the lack of alarm and why, imo.
8
It will be the speed this time, we are warmer than all interglacials and warm weather isn't climate, an average of 14 degrees raising to an average 10-15 degrees above that isn't something any Roman has seen. This is accelerated climate change and nothing of the last 15,000 years are valid as a base for the future, we are now warmer than any time in 3 million years and getting warmer, what's to make of a complete change of every thing you've known?
7
@foxmoongaze You have no idea, average warming during the medieval wasn't warmer so what history does the non physicist have?
4
True but accelerated climate change means we will have different weather.
4
Feelings of distrust and opinions don't beat facts, unfortunately that is a fact..
4
Opinions are like assholes, everyones got one, yours should not be seen.
3
@foxmoongaze You have nothing but your own opinion, prove that energy added to a system doesn't mean anything. Prove heat trapped doesn't increase temperature, disprove heat will melt ice before you agree with people who are very very wrong.
3
@seanfennessey1851 Explain how adding energy to a system doesn't affect it?
3
How does the govt benefit off tax if tax doesn't pay for anything? I will repost what I said to another denier below, if you have any questions please ask. 99.97% of the mass of the atmosphere is only 100k or 62 mile high. If you go above three and a half k you would need breathing apparatus, the point is every bit of stored carbon we are using in the range of 100 million 42 gallon drums daily is being put into this tiny sliver of atmosphere. In a tank of diesel is the same amount of energy as my total electrical energy for 3,2 months in an Australian summer with the air con going 24-7, if somebody uses a tank a week for a year that is equal to 17 years of my electrical energy. We put this carbon in and it's not 0.04% of the atmosphere, all this mass is around us because of gravity, carbon gas mass, when it's parts per million, it is how many there are per million molecules. One million molecules is a really tiny amount of space, there are trillions and trillions just in the kilogram of air and all the square metres above you. We are now at around 430 molecules of carbon for each and every million sized parcel of air. Now, radiation from the sun hits the earth, this heat needs to leave again, it travels through us to space again, if there are trillions and trillions of absolute squillions of more molecules that can absorb this heat, it slows down the transfer of heat, and you can not add to any system without it meaning something. The meaning something in this case is when God was supposedly around he didn't have an Esky so he left all the ice, that cools us to this temperature, roughly what we have had 15,000 years, he/she left it all out in the open. Now we both believe that you can't add energy/heat to a system like that without it meaning something. They can of course work out what is coming and the way we are going it will be total destruction of everything you've known, should you call that alarmist I am not sure but it's the speed we are talking about this time. The temps they think we are going to go to because of this increased forced radiation has been on the earth before, and plants and animals lived. That time it took 700,000 years to reach that temp, this time they reckon we will do it in one thousand years, to a temp that nothing alive today has experienced and might mean instead of the average temperature of the earth being 15 it might be 30. As we have taken millions of years to adapt and humans are now alive at a temperature that no human has experienced, in fact 3 million years, this isn't alarmist nonsense, this is something the sooner older people stop saying things they can't explain their way out of logically, the better. I understand change is hard considering something that is classed as normal your whole life has to change but the truth is there if you want to see it. The powers that be would rather lie and keep everyone slaves than lose or change themselves, they are more likely afraid of total collapse if they finally told the real truth. The truth is windmills aren't going to stop the next 30 years because of the lag affect and of course for you that will be ok, myself probably as well. I will say again, we can not add energy to a system without it meaning something, just because you might not fully understand the whole issue does not in any way mean this is climate alarmism, what you should be more concerned with is the lack of alarm and why. We are not in a cooling cycle if the melt is quicker and sea level rise is increasing in speed, if the sea level rise is increasing as it is a cooling cycle must be impossible. I understand because of the age of Richard he might have an older crowd but to say all satellites are lying must mean you aren't serious in your comment or uninformed correctly.
2
1.5 is gone and no Paris agreements are being kept.
2
@foxmoongaze No no, say something climate change valid and we'll dance..
2
@MrBallynally2 Free market consumption on a finite planet is not logical.
2
@Freesurfer688 I wrote this to a couple of other people, I think it explains it clearly 99.97% of the mass of the atmosphere is only 100k or 62 mile high. If you go above three and a half k you would need breathing apparatus, the point is every bit of stored carbon we are using in the range of 100 million 42 gallon drums daily is being put into this tiny sliver of atmosphere. In a tank of diesel is the same amount of energy as my total electrical energy for 3,2 months in an Australian summer with the air con going 24-7, if somebody uses a tank a week for a year that is equal to 17 years of my electrical energy. We put this carbon in and it's not 0.04% of the atmosphere, all this mass is around us because of gravity, carbon gas mass, when it's parts per million, it is how many there are per million molecules. One million molecules is a really tiny amount of space, there are trillions and trillions just in the kilogram of air and all the square metres above you. We are now at around 430 molecules of carbon for each and every million sized parcel of air. Now, radiation from the sun hits the earth, this heat needs to leave again, it travels through us to space again, if there are trillions and trillions of absolute squillions of more molecules that can absorb this heat, it slows down the transfer of heat, and you can not add to any system without it meaning something. The meaning something in this case is when God was supposedly around he didn't have an Esky so he left all the ice, that cools us to this temperature, roughly what we have had 15,000 years, he/she left it all out in the open. Now we both believe that you can't add energy/heat to a system like that without it meaning something. They can of course work out what is coming and the way we are going it will be total destruction of everything you've known, should you call that alarmist I am not sure but it's the speed we are talking about this time. The temps they think we are going to go to because of this increased forced radiation has been on the earth before, and plants and animals lived. That time it took 700,000 years to reach that temp, this time they reckon we will do it in one thousand years, to a temp that nothing alive today has experienced and might mean instead of the average temperature of the earth being 15 it might be 30. As we have taken millions of years to adapt and humans are now alive at a temperature that no human has experienced, in fact 3 million years, this isn't alarmist nonsense, this is something the sooner older people stop saying things they can't explain their way out of logically, the better. I understand change is hard considering something that is classed as normal your whole life has to change but the truth is there if you want to see it. The powers that be would rather lie and keep everyone slaves than lose or change themselves, they are more likely afraid of total collapse if they finally told the real truth. The truth is windmills aren't going to stop the next 30 years because of the lag affect and of course for you that will be ok, myself probably as well. I will say again, we can not add energy to a system without it meaning something, just because you might not fully understand the whole issue does not in any way mean this is climate alarmism, what you should be more concerned with is the lack of alarm and why, imo.
2
@howardosborne8647 I am not sure why you think this pertinent, cattle are carbon neutral for the metahne they emit in this country and many more. If a bog produces methane and it produces a certain amount each year because methane is gone after 80 years the bog or cattle, if the herd size has not increased has not increased warming. Did I not just say the temperatures were hotter too, if Co2 was higher an the temps were higher, what is it that you are proofing to me? Ohhh how lush it was, yep animals and plants, none of those are alive today, maybe the crocodile, which where I am is moving south because the waters are getting warmer. They don't have crocidiles everywhere but as the water is getting warmer their habitat increases in size. This is not hearsay, this is fact, so an animal like a crocidile knows the planet is warming why don't adult humans?
1
@zetectic7968 I worked out the percentage of carbon that would be captured if the IIEA forcast of a 1000% increase in the number of plants at current capture rates by 2035 would mean 1.16% of current carbon emissions would be taken down, so realistically less than one percent by then. IF the 1000% increase were to happen.
1
@manoo422 Plastic : a synthetic material made from a wide range of organic polymers such as polyethylene, PVC, nylon, etc., that can be moulded into shape while soft, and then set into a rigid or slightly elastic form
1
@indricotherium4802 clean energy won't replace the 6000 products we get from oil
1
@indricotherium4802 I am sorry, I do not know what this means "isn't the carbon incorporated in the product?"" Clean energy is electricity, in modern countries electricity is around 20% of total energy used, nylon, asphalt, car tyres etc edit along with diesel, oil for lubricants, rubber coated wires, they all have an energy value and are part of the 80% that isn't electric.
1
@indricotherium4802 Clean energy is made with coal and oil and won't be replaced without them.
1
The best thing big tobacco could do to slow down the decline in sales was to create doubt, big oil took over the same tactics and advertisers, you are the epitome of all that is needed these days, zero proof, just a wrong opinion is all it takes and people who do this should be ashamed. The science is well past proven so hopefully all you are doing is trying to drive comments..
1
You might want to add the removal of oil from your life to that list.
1
@JLSMaytham They say for any social change the bourgeois need to be on board first. The general public are largely kept unaware to the severity because of the media bubble we live under and then the goal is to me, to do less than more, we could literally stop what we are doing and the affect would be instantaneous, we need people on the streets and not moving en masse now, we need social change where work and money are almost things of the past.\I think we will end up living like the 1800;s but with electricity, which of course means the collapse of the debt based system we have but hey, it's a start.
1
@paulgibbons2320 Capitalism is just means of production are in private hands and not dictated to by the govt. People are still going to consume but why should private interests be more important than the whole? Why should people be allowed to produce something using resources etc, just because people are prepared to pay for it, on a world of infinite resources I can see uncontrolled consumption not being a problem but we aren't on that world. What follows is people don't starve to death in the world, that all people have shelter and medical care, the rest can be up to the people what they do but money as a ticket to energy, which in the future might not be there could be removed from the system, has to be removed from the system, money being bank debt and the only way people have basic services is if they hold someone else's debt, money, is this right that you can only eat if other people get into debt? Is this a better option?
1
@paulgibbons2320 It seems as though your opinion is coming through that you feel my response didn't suit your emotions on the matter?
1
@paulgibbons2320 Copy and paste and remove words or reverse the paragraphs works for me most times, your comments will be in your data, although sometimes some of mine don't get recorded there either, getting around sensitive words or topics can be difficult when we don't know what they are
1
@paulgibbons2320 Nothing of what I said discounted what you said.
1
@paulgibbons2320 There is no vacuum, there is no doubt as to what to do and under no circumstance's should you say the reason we aren't stopping global warming is people's fear of being less than useful.
1
stopit, you don't know what you are talking about and are now spamming
1
@MrBallynally2 You can not add energy to a system without it meaning something, stop promoting the death of the world as you know it.
1
not saying ev's are the answer but on one hand we have change or the other hand we have the chance of 90% of all species dying out like the last time the earth went to the temps we are going too. Are you sure you are being as flexible as you can to resist a heat pump that might have a 600% efficiency rating...? 3..2...1.".heat pumps can't be 600% efficient ", "that's impossible" well, because of the gas exchange they use one unit of electricity and give out 6 units of heating or cooling energy. Saying heat can only work in a highly insulated house has to be the dumbest thing I have heard yet..edit : as electricity is mostly gas, the efficiency rating shouldn't be taken as the final rating. But are you sure you are 67, you sound as though you are younger but acting old
1
@Withnail1969 You are trolling and posting so many comments in the negative, little comments that can easily be disproven, why, what goal are you achieving, considering you are able to be wrong?
1