Search results

Just panels, not a van. And I generate more than I use. It saves half my bill and I get £300 for export. I'll get more panels when I get an EV

Nope, 9 years at the moment, saving around £1300 a year. 6 years left. The morons who reject solar panels because they're good for the environment , even though they're a great financial investment, are odd.

Mine was on track to pay back in 10 financially. Then its profit all the way

Since Harry hasn't thought of these things he assumes no one has.

Its pretty unlikely.* Massive changes in understanding of science do happen, but none have been this well studied and this well predicted. *Which is a scientists way of saying no, because scientists are generally open to being wrong. Nothing can convince you that you're mistaken here.

Your point being?

At one time most people didn't think we were changing the climate and there was serious discussion in scientific circles. Then we learnt better. Now the people claiming that humans aren't causing image change are in the same camp as the flat earthers, no matter how much they hate to admit it...

Car batteries contain loads of lead, around 8Kg. We can't bury it because it gets into the ground water, we can't burn it because that's worse. You might want to picks different example. That's not for CO2 reduction, that's so weird don't poison ourselves. Plus most places that sell batteries...

Not all are, and yes hypocrisy, especially in the use of private jets, is absurd. But demanding perfection from all people saying we should reduce CO2 emissions before doing anything is a childish and even more hypocritical position.

Yes, huge amounts and far more than the scientific mainstream. Think about it for a second, if you could prove there's no issue with CO2 then oil companies would throw millions at you hand over fist. They have done so for anyone who can cast some doubt on the topic as above.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1286457920301581

It's amazing how the people how deny human driven climate change are able to be so confident when there are so few people who study the topic that agree with them. Its like the people that refused to accept the Copernican system and insist the earth is the centre of the universe. No one...

You didn't do much science in school did you?

Forbes is not a peer reviewed scientific journal and the author is a retired oil executive. The author also agrees that the consensus amongst in climate scientists is very strong, even if it quibbles over wether the actual support might be as low as only 84% depending on which study you look...

Do you consider 97% of the world's climate scientists to be the gullible? Aveatry seems to be promoting the 'its not man-made and it'll be a good thing' narrative. Which is wrong on both points and has been analysed to death.

No it hasn't. As long as by Volcanos you're excluding massive and pretty obvious geological events. But rather than relying on the discussions on a web site, pay attention to people who study it professionally. They've looked into this line of argument and found it to be *******s.

No. Modelling shows the little ice age was caused by man due to massive changes to vegetation and land use. This isn't natural change, this is man made.

Call me self centered but I prefer the planet to be habitable for humans and view making the planet less habitable for humans to be a bad thing. And as even aveatry agrees, the planet is warming rapidly, only an idiot would disagree with that.

It takes a special kind of stupid to look at that graph and ask if the temperature is dropping. And for that we have aveatry.