On 26/08/2022 11:48, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <5a1d6f5346noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <jmnhl3F21gpU1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
>> <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
>
>>> But even if the UK produced no CO2 whatsoever it would make
>>> hardly any difference to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>
>> Hinges on your definition of "hardly", but yes, if everyone else
>> carried on like before our acting alone would simply slightly slow
>> the rate of rise.
>
> According to figures I've seen which I'm told are the IPCC' own
> figures, a drop of 1% in man's CO2 from UK's FF burning (Net Zero)
> would result in a 0.002C drop in temperature by 2100. Which even in
> the unlikely event the unproven CO2 theory is correct would be
> unmeasurable. >
> It is also the case according to the Spectator that our CO2 output is
> now down to the same level as 1857. Recently updated figure.

That's all very happy news, but it is a bit disingenuous. We may not do
the amount of CO2-producing metal bashing industry here that other
countries do, but we still use the products of it. How convenient it is
that we don't count any of that in our own figures!

We're only 'clean' and 'non-polluting' because we've exported all of our
industry and encouraged others to pollute on our behalf to produce what
we consume. We should surely be taking responsibility for our share of
that, and stop pretending it's nothing to do with us.

On 26/08/2022 11:48, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <5a1d6f5346noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> In article <jmnhl3F21gpU1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
>> <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> But even if the UK produced no CO2 whatsoever it would make
>>> hardly any difference to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>>
>> Hinges on your definition of "hardly", but yes, if everyone else
>> carried on like before our acting alone would simply slightly slow
>> the rate of rise.
>
> According to figures I've seen which I'm told are the IPCC' own
> figures,

Given the cesspits of fake news that you wallow in, you should check
them for yourself before posting them here.

> a drop of 1% in man's CO2 from UK's FF burning (Net Zero)
> would result in a 0.002C drop in temperature by 2100. Which even in
> the unlikely event the unproven CO2 theory is correct would be
> unmeasurable.

That's totally beside the point. The entire world has to drop its
emissions, and we are part of that world and therefore part of that effort.

> It is also the case according to the Spectator that our CO2 output is
> now down to the same level as 1857. Recently updated figure.

Sigh! Even you managed to get it right a day or two ago, it's 1888:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uks-co2-emissions-have-fallen-29-per-cent-over-the-past-decade/

> Given those figures and the cost of Net zero to the poor, to industry
> and to Britain's standard of living for decades to come,

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for that claim?

> I cannot see
> how anyone rational and without 'another agenda' could possibly think
> that Net zero was a sensible thing for the UK. All it can possibly
> achieve is virtue signalling at an astronomical cost to the nation
> especially the poor, remember them, the people socialists used to
> care about?

Translation: I'm a bigoted idiot fond of selfish-shit signalling.

>> The snag in the UK is that Tory voters don't like to see
>> 'windmills' spoil the view.
>
> What a slanted view, you should be a Newsnight presenter. Would it
> not be more likely that anyone who appreciates the natural beauty of
> the countryside in the UK would be very saddened by the monstrous
> flying animal choppers.

TROLL! PROVEN LIE REFUTED MULTIPLE TIMES REPEATED YET AGAIN!

These studies are quite old, and there has been at least a doubling in
wind generation since, but even so fossil-fuels combined kill way more
wildlife than renewable generation:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/sep/27/wind-power-wildlife-lucy-siegle

Not a very good site, but does contain a bar-chart, together with
caveats about the age of the data:
https://thinkprogress.org/chart-how-many-birds-are-killed-by-wind-solar-oil-and-coal-230d2a939bbb/

The comparative report mentioned by The Guardian is here. Note, for
example, Section 3 Table 3.1.

https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/-/media/Files/Publications/Research/Environmental/Vertebrate-Wildlife-Effects-Risks.pdf

And, as always, this yet another example of you including the
environmental or other costs of technologies you don't like and not
including those of technologies you like.

>> (Or, I suspect, the value of their shares in oil companies.)
>
> LOL. How many Tory voters as a percentage do think have shares in the
> oil industry. Any nonsense you can come up with to make a snide
> comment about people with a different view to you.

Unfortunately, it's mostly not the Tory voters that have shares, it's
the politicians and their rich backers, though it's not just the oil
industry:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2015/apr/01/tory-100-industry-captains-party-donors-tax-avoiders

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In article <jmrpf0Fmfh2U1@mid.individual.net>,
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> On 26/08/2022 11:48, Bob Latham wrote:
> > In article <5a1d6f5346noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> > Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In article <jmnhl3F21gpU1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
> >> <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> But even if the UK produced no CO2 whatsoever it would make
> >>> hardly any difference to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
> >
> >> Hinges on your definition of "hardly", but yes, if everyone else
> >> carried on like before our acting alone would simply slightly slow
> >> the rate of rise.
> >
> > According to figures I've seen which I'm told are the IPCC' own
> > figures, a drop of 1% in man's CO2 from UK's FF burning (Net
> > Zero) would result in a 0.002C drop in temperature by 2100. Which
> > even in the unlikely event the unproven CO2 theory is correct
> > would be unmeasurable. > It is also the case according to the
> > Spectator that our CO2 output is now down to the same level as
> > 1857. Recently updated figure.

> That's all very happy news, but it is a bit disingenuous. We may
> not do the amount of CO2-producing metal bashing industry here that
> other countries do, but we still use the products of it. How
> convenient it is that we don't count any of that in our own figures!

> We're only 'clean' and 'non-polluting' because we've exported all
> of our industry and encouraged others to pollute on our behalf to
> produce what we consume. We should surely be taking responsibility
> for our share of that, and stop pretending it's nothing to do with
> us.

That maybe true but there is nothing we can do about that except stop
buying products from abroad like electric cars.

It's all a nonsense anyway. CO2 is plant food and essential to life,
and the planet's levels of CO2 are near the lowest they've ever been.
Man interfered just in time before CO2 was low enough for plant death.

CO2 is not a pollutant either, it is deranged to think it is. CO2 is
a political weapon of the left.

Bob.

On 26/08/2022 14:07, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> That maybe true but there is nothing we can do about that except stop
> buying products from abroad like electric cars.

Why only electric cars, why no, please god why not, the computers you
use to type all this crap on?

> It's all a nonsense anyway. CO2 is plant food and essential to life,

In the right dilutions. If you were in an atmosphere of only CO2, you'd
soon die.

> and the planet's levels of CO2 are near the lowest they've ever been.

But not the lowest they've ever been while complex life such as our own
has been living on it.

> Man interfered just in time before CO2 was low enough for plant death.

Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this absurd claim?

> CO2 is not a pollutant either, it is deranged to think it is. CO2 is
> a political weapon of the left.

It is deranged to the point of paranoia to think that CO2 is a political
weapon of anyone.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 25/08/2022 10:35, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> The snag in the UK is that Tory voters don't like to see 'windmills' spoil
> the view. (Or, I suspect, the value of their shares in oil companies.)

Tory voters? In fact the greeny/lefty brigade have a bit of a problem
with this. Many of them care a great deal about the countryside (well
the aesthetics of it; they tend to know or care little about the
economics of agriculture) so the really don't like to see wind turbines
popping up all over. But they can't very well say owt can they?

I think yer average Tory cares a lot more about his electric bill than
about the view across the fields.

Bill

PS: I can see at least 40 wind turbines from here!