If this survey is real the messages these young people are receiving are completely wrong.
We need to reduce our impact on our planet but CO2 is a complete red herring. The current ECS (temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is centred around 3°C (IPCC AR6). The 2°C will destroy civilisation is simply made up.
Peter, I do not understand your position. On one hand, you are saying that NONE of us produce any proof of our statements, whereas we do with easily available information produced by real scientists, and yet you refuse to do the same, simply telling us we need to read the IPCC papers, particularly the political summary for policymakers. You are obviously a “climate change is manmade” advocate, with the addition that the most significant part of CO2 increases is from fossil fuels. However, even the IPCC offers zero evidence of either of these claims. Do you not see this as the biggest hole in your own position? This is from two theses, the first being the ridiculous assertion that correlation means causation, although the correlation claimed has a time offset of some 600 years in the WRONG direction (in other words temperature leads to CO2 increase). Secondly, there is also negative proof in the form of C12/C14 ratios that the majority of CO2 increase is from fossil fuels, which actually have a different ratio to the atmosphere.
I, and probably others, would find it very useful if you would provide the proof I have miss-defined your position, and rather than just saying we are following Heartland, actually reference either the IPCC documents or the underlying scientific papers that attempt to answer these two points.
If you find that you cannot, I suggest that you fully apologise to the members of this forum, whom you have berated and abused in fairly significant ways. I and others are very happy to discuss actual science, but not IPCC political documents from a political organisation whose money comes from the UN to demonstrate man-made climate change, with the underlying aim to redistribute serious money to damage the developed countries.
It is absolutely obvious too that the Green agenda being applied to the UK will make no measurable difference, even though the £4.2 Trillion costs to upgrade the entire electricity system, along with all the other simply astronomical costs for space heating and electric transport, will bankrupt everyone in the UK, and completely destroy our industry. Therefore you must consider the purpose of your message, exactly what is behind it and what do you want to achieve?
Peter, I do not understand your position. On one hand, you are saying that NONE of us produce any proof of our statements, whereas we do with easily available information produced by real scientists, and yet you refuse to do the same, simply telling us we need to read the IPCC papers, particularly the political summary for policymakers. You are obviously a “climate change is manmade” advocate, with the addition that the most significant part of CO2 increases is from fossil fuels. However, even the IPCC offers zero evidence of either of these claims. Do you not see this as the biggest hole in your own position? This is from two theses, the first being the ridiculous assertion that correlation means causation, although the correlation claimed has a time offset of some 600 years in the WRONG direction (in other words temperature leads to CO2 increase). Secondly, there is also negative proof in the form of C12/C14 ratios that the majority of CO2 increase is from fossil fuels, which actually have a different ratio to the atmosphere.
I, and probably others, would find it very useful if you would provide the proof I have miss-defined your position, and rather than just saying we are following Heartland, actually reference either the IPCC documents or the underlying scientific papers that attempt to answer these two points.
If you find that you cannot, I suggest that you fully apologise to the members of this forum, whom you have berated and abused in fairly significant ways. I and others are very happy to discuss actual science, but not IPCC political documents from a political organisation whose money comes from the UN to demonstrate man-made climate change, with the underlying aim to redistribute serious money to damage the developed countries.
It is absolutely obvious too that the Green agenda being applied to the UK will make no measurable difference, even though the £4.2 Trillion costs to upgrade the entire electricity system, along with all the other simply astronomical costs for space heating and electric transport, will bankrupt everyone in the UK, and completely destroy our industry. Therefore you must consider the purpose of your message, exactly what is behind it and what do you want to achieve?
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site
