Hydrogen power

[FishFright]

The claims you've tried to ask me to justify, were not my claims. I suggest you aim your petulance at those that made them.

Ok I'll take your assertions with all the serious they deserved, none.

 

[FishFright]

For clarity, and because there has been a fair amount of goal post shifting and obfuscation, here's the post that people are demanding evidence of, despite them not really relating to anything in it.

For clarity that isn't the post people are asking for evidence for.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

Ok I'll take your assertions with all the serious they deserved, none.

Given you haven't commented on any of the content of the post I made, but asked me for proof of other people's assertions, I can take that.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

For clarity that isn't the post people are asking for evidence for.

Yup, that's pretty much the point I keep making.

 

[FishFright]

Yup, that's pretty much the point I keep making.

Pointing to a completely different post is an interesting tactic

 

[BrumJim]

This is getting very NCAP.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

This is getting very NCAP.

As well as boring a pointless.

The main bit of interest for me is watching people demand that I support someone elses point.

 

[BrumJim]

As well as boring a pointless.

The main bit of interest for me is watching people demand that I support someone elses point.

We're just letting you down gently. At some point legislation will force everyone to face up to the damage they are doing to the world. It's not the media, anyone in a position of informed responsibility is well aware of the human effects on, and consequences of climate change. It is only mass denial that is encouraging politicians to delay the difficult decisions (including Sir Kier Starmer).

 

[ClichéGuevara]

We're just letting you down gently. At some point legislation will force everyone to face up to the damage they are doing to the world. It's not the media, anyone in a position of informed responsibility is well aware of the human effects on, and consequences of climate change. It is only mass denial that is encouraging politicians to delay the difficult decisions (including Sir Kier Starmer).

You seem to think that has some relevance to the actual post I made, when in reality, it's actually aimed at the posters that tried to shift the goal posts.

 

[Dadam]

Despite the claims, there are still some serious scientific discussions to be had on both of those claims.

Before anyone asks, no that is not based on any of the conspiracy stuff, quite a lot comes from the data and findings that form the basis of what is in the IPCC reports. The reports themselves do not always represent the science that underpins them.

That's not what the science that underpins the IPPC reports say, nor plenty of other scientists from the appropriate fields.

We need specific examples. Instead, the repeated requests for data to back up your assertion have been met with handwaving and attempts at gaslighting.

 

[Alex321]

For clarity, and because there has been a fair amount of goal post shifting and obfuscation, here's the post that people are demanding evidence of, despite them not really relating to anything in it.

That is NOT the post which people are demanding evidence of.

This is what people are demanding evidence of:

This is a complete straw man. Could you please point to anyone saying there a no benefits from fossil fuels?

This issue is how to continue to deliver those benefits, given:
(1) A huge previously unaccounted for cost has been discovered - climate change and
(2) They are a finite resource, so by definition, cannot continue ad infinitum.

Despite the claims, there are still some serious scientific discussions to be had on both of those claims.

Before anyone asks, no that is not based on any of the conspiracy stuff, quite a lot comes from the data and findings that form the basis of what is in the IPCC reports. The reports themselves do not always represent the science that underpins them.

You have yet to actually back up either of those claims by pointing us to any of those "data and findings".

 

[ClichéGuevara]

That is NOT the post which people are demanding evidence of.

This is what people are demanding evidence of:




You have yet to actually back up either of those claims by pointing us to any of those "data and findings".

We need specific examples. Instead, the repeated requests for data to back up your assertion have been met with handwaving and attempts at gaslighting.

The reports themselves contain references to the sources. I suggest you start there. I'm not sure why people that seem to claim knowledge of the topic are so reluctant to spend a little extra time getting a deeper understanding for themselves.

 

[Dadam]

The reports themselves contain references to the sources. I suggest you start there. I'm not sure why people that seem to claim knowledge of the topic are so reluctant to spend a little extra time getting a deeper understanding for themselves.

You made the claims, it is on you to provide specific evidence to back them up. That's how it works

 

[ClichéGuevara]

I think the talk of alternative fuels is several steps in to a discussion that should really start much earlier in the process, as there are serious questions to ask about the fundamental justifications for the removal of fossil fuels, and the cost benefit analysis so far are seriously skewed.

The Dutch resolved the problem of sea level rises long before industrialisation, which raises a couple of interesting and very pertinent questions in itself. There actions resulted in an increase in fertile agricultural land, which they have benefited from ever since.

What rarely gets included in the debates are the many benefits fossil fuels have brought us, including increased life expectancy, better health, both of which are liable to be far greater than the losses predicted by the doom sayers, which are themselves very debatable. There is also the massive decrease in the loss of life and property from natural disasters that have been possible largely due to the technology made possible by fossil fuels.

I don't see much discussion on how ancient monuments are going to be kept maintained when the funding from tourism is removed, or how countries like Italy, Spain, Greece etc will replace the 10% of GDP they currently gain from tourism, nor how Governments are going to replace the lost tax revenue gained from fossil fuels.

And still nobody has offered a comment on the actual post I made.

Maybe I should stamp my feet demanding proof or for claims that haven't been made, as that seems to be what some feel is mature discussion.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

You made the claims, it is on you to provide specific evidence to back them up. That's how it works

I have offered proof, it's just that you will need to actually do a bit of research as well as some studying to understand it, as that's how it really works.