Climate Change

[badgerx16]

This is a view of Koonin from the more mainstream media.....

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-book-manages-to-get-climate-science-badly-wrong/

 

".....Koonin’s intervention into the debate about what to do about climate risks seems to be designed to subvert this progress in all respects by making distracting, irrelevant, misguided, misleading and unqualified statements ....."

 

( You pay your money, you make your choice. )

Edited 21 August, 2023 by badgerx16

[Scally42]

29 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

This is a view of Koonin from the more mainstream media.....

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-book-manages-to-get-climate-science-badly-wrong/

 

".....Koonin’s intervention into the debate about what to do about climate risks seems to be designed to subvert this progress in all respects by making distracting, irrelevant, misguided, misleading and unqualified statements ....."

 

( You pay your money, you make your choice. )

If you watch the video you'll see that everything he talks about is relevant to the latest IPCC Report. It's free to download, if you want to show me where in there it proves he's wrong then I'd be interested. Just taking the usual cheap shot attack on him offers nothing.  

Edited 21 August, 2023 by Scally42

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Scally42 said:

If you watch the video you'll see that everything he talks about is relevant to the latest IPCC Report. It's free to download, if you want to show me where in there it proves he's wrong then I'd be interested. Just taking the usual cheap shot attack on him offers nothing.  

He distorts things to suit his narrative. Early on he says that human activity is responsible for 1% of the heat energy in the atmosphere. Whilst this may be true, and the IPCC report does not have anything to say on this figure, it is disingenuous.

The bulk of the heat energy in the atmosphere comes from the sun - without it the Earth would be a frozen inert block, and this energy keeps the temperature at a range suitable for life - currently at about 288 Kelvin average by his reckoning, ( 288 degrees above absolute zero - although he does seem to get his numbers confused as he actually says that the average temperature is about 300K ( 27C ) ). His 1% claim seems to be based on increasing this 288K, or 15 degrees Celcius average, by a small percentage, perhaps to 291K. Measured in Kelvin this seems to be insignificant, but this actually increases things by more than the 1.5 degrees the IPCC sets as a threshhold.

 

What the IPCC report does state is "Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming, "

[Fan The Flames]

8 hours ago, Scally42 said:

This will open up a can of worms

Thats not unbiased at all 😂

Anyway, no one wants to drive their house into central London.

[Fan The Flames]

8 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

Me neither. £2,000 on a Ulez compliant car sounds like a Top Gear challenge, where they all go out and buy a Daihatsu, a Lada and a Daewoo, all with 150k on the clock, and hilarity ensues. My first car was a second hand Daewoo Kalos and it cost more than double that.

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202211221903727?advertising-location=at_cars&atmobcid=soc5&fromsra&include-delivery-option=on&maximum-mileage=40000&price-to=2000&sort=relevance

[Fan The Flames]

9 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Not if you live outside of London you can't. 

That's down to the local councils, they could do a scrapage scheme if they wanted to.

[hypochondriac]

Just now, Fan The Flames said:

That's down to the local councils, they could do a scrapage scheme if they wanted to.

They're skint. 

[Fan The Flames]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

They're skint. 

Because the tories have pushed more and more onto local government whilst cutting central funding. It's not working is it.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, Fan The Flames said:

Because the tories have pushed more and more onto local government whilst cutting central funding. It's not working is it.

Again, I don't care who is at fault. Local councils can't afford scrapoage schemes and it means the ULEZ is just a tax on the poor. 

[Fan The Flames]

10 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Again, I don't care who is at fault. Local councils can't afford scrapoage schemes and it means the ULEZ is just a tax on the poor. 

It's a political choice what they prioritise.

The cost of Brexit on hard working families was dismissed as project fear, let's not pretend that the tories really care about the impact this stuff has.

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

It's a political choice what they prioritise.

The cost of Brexit on hard working families was dismissed as project fear, let's not pretend that the tories really care about the impact this stuff has.

I didn't mention the tories, you did. Expansion of ULEZ hits the poorest the worst and according to imperial college, has reduced emissions in the atmosphere by 3% and had a negligible impact on air quality. Whoever is responsible, whatever colour of politician they are, it should be highlighted what they are doing and it should be stopped. 

[ashnats]

4 hours ago, Scally42 said:

This is a great watch for anybody who wants a view on climate change that you won't get from the mainstream media

 

Is he the physicist guy who worked for BP? Think he was thoroughly discredited as motivated by book sales - not a credible climate scientist.

[Lighthouse]

2 hours ago, Fan The Flames said:

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202211221903727?advertising-location=at_cars&atmobcid=soc5&fromsra&include-delivery-option=on&maximum-mileage=40000&price-to=2000&sort=relevance

Well that’s that sorted then, everyone just needs to go out and buy a nearly 20 year old hatchback with three previous owners. Apparently that car is better for the environment than a 2015 diesel.

[Scally42]

2 hours ago, ashnats said:

Is he the physicist guy who worked for BP? Think he was thoroughly discredited as motivated by book sales - not a credible climate scientist.

Thanks for your imput, so any one who writes a book about anything is discredited because they make money out of their views. So you've no idea if he's correct in what he says then?

[Fan The Flames]

6 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

Well that’s that sorted then, everyone just needs to go out and buy a nearly 20 year old hatchback with three previous owners. Apparently that car is better for the environment than a 2015 diesel.

You're moving the goal posts. You said you'd struggle to find a ulez compliant sub 2k car, I found that in 20 seconds.

[Weston Super Saint]

6 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

Well that’s that sorted then, everyone just needs to go out and buy a nearly 20 year old hatchback with three previous owners. Apparently that car is better for the environment than a 2015 diesel.

£180 per year in tax for that Punto with CO2 emissions of 140g per KM.  

Meanwhile a 2012 1.6 blue drive Hyundai i30 with £0 tax per year and CO2 emissions of 97g per KM will cost £12.50 per day to drive in ULEZ.

There is no sense to this made up tax, especially when lower CO2 emissions are punished while higher CO2 emissions are able to pollute as much as they like for no additional cost.

[Scally42]

9 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

He distorts things to suit his narrative. Early on he says that human activity is responsible for 1% of the heat energy in the atmosphere. Whilst this may be true, and the IPCC report does not have anything to say on this figure, it is disingenuous.

The bulk of the heat energy in the atmosphere comes from the sun - without it the Earth would be a frozen inert block, and this energy keeps the temperature at a range suitable for life - currently at about 288 Kelvin average by his reckoning, ( 288 degrees above absolute zero - although he does seem to get his numbers confused as he actually says that the average temperature is about 300K ( 27C ) ). His 1% claim seems to be based on increasing this 288K, or 15 degrees Celcius average, by a small percentage, perhaps to 291K. Measured in Kelvin this seems to be insignificant, but this actually increases things by more than the 1.5 degrees the IPCC sets as a threshhold.

 

What the IPCC report does state is "Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming, "

I go back to this image ofthe Mer de Glace on Mont Blanc, the glacier has been melting since 1820, the Little Ice Age ended in 1850. So you and the IPCC believe that the majority of the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age is mainly human caused depsite the face that the earth would obviously have been warming considerably as we were coming out of a very cool period, the image below confirms this as as you can see the glacier has been melting since 1820. To put the blame of a warming world on humans is stretching it a bit as the world was warming before we started pumping co2 into it

[Weston Super Saint]

7 hours ago, ashnats said:

Is he the physicist guy who worked for BP? Think he was thoroughly discredited as motivated by book sales - not a credible climate scientist.

Well, would you look at that, a climate scientist with an agenda.  Who knew, eh?

[badgerx16]

49 minutes ago, Scally42 said:

 So you and the IPCC believe that the majority of the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age is mainly human caused,......

 

 Not at all, hence "The bulk of the heat energy in the atmosphere comes from the sun", but since 1750 probably, and since 1900 certainly. It is the acceleration over 250 years that is human influenced, not the general trend over 30 thousand.

 

Crap analogy;

If the cold tap in your bath is running water into your bath at the rate of the maximum outflow through the drain hole the bath will not fill up. If you then turn on the hot tap slightly, the bath will eventually overflow. It's how far we might be throwing a system out of balance that matters, and it doesn't take a lot in comparison to the size of the overall system.

Edited 22 August, 2023 by badgerx16

[StDunko]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

£180 per year in tax for that Punto with CO2 emissions of 140g per KM.  

Meanwhile a 2012 1.6 blue drive Hyundai i30 with £0 tax per year and CO2 emissions of 97g per KM will cost £12.50 per day to drive in ULEZ.

There is no sense to this made up tax, especially when lower CO2 emissions are punished while higher CO2 emissions are able to pollute as much as they like for no additional cost.

Pollution is not only about CO2 equivalent emissions, diesel cars emit loads more particulate matter (PM5, PM10 etc.) than petrol cars.  It is this particulate matter that is strongly associated with health problems.

If half the whingers on here were around in 1956 and 1968 I bet you would've argued against the 'clear air acts' and would've wanted our city's to still be full of coal fires etc., using the same arguments...

[Weston Super Saint]

9 minutes ago, StDunko said:

Pollution is not only about CO2 equivalent emissions, diesel cars emit loads more particulate matter (PM5, PM10 etc.) than petrol cars.  It is this particulate matter that is strongly associated with health problems.

If half the whingers on here were around in 1956 and 1968 I bet you would've argued against the 'clear air acts' and would've wanted our city's to still be full of coal fires etc., using the same arguments...

I'm assuming that is why there is legislation covering ALL diesel cars since 2014 (source) regarding particulate filters.  There should be no need for ULEZ if legislation already exists to control this pollution, unless of course the aim is to generate income.

On that note, can anyone find any concrete evidence of what the money raised is spent on?  There are several wishy washy statements about re-investing in transport (including walking FFS!), but no hard figures available.  Although it does seem as if a large chunk of the money raised is being used to set up the expanded ULEZ to generate yet more income!

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, Scally42 said:

I go back to this image ofthe Mer de Glace on Mont Blanc, the glacier has been melting since 1820, the Little Ice Age ended in 1850. So you and the IPCC believe that the majority of the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age is mainly human caused depsite the face that the earth would obviously have been warming considerably as we were coming out of a very cool period, the image below confirms this as as you can see the glacier has been melting since 1820. To put the blame of a warming world on humans is stretching it a bit as the world was warming before we started pumping co2 into it

This will help you out fella:

https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2953/there-is-no-impending-mini-ice-age/

 

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, StDunko said:

Pollution is not only about CO2 equivalent emissions, diesel cars emit loads more particulate matter (PM5, PM10 etc.) than petrol cars.  It is this particulate matter that is strongly associated with health problems.

If half the whingers on here were around in 1956 and 1968 I bet you would've argued against the 'clear air acts' and would've wanted our city's to still be full of coal fires etc., using the same arguments...

These are not the same arguments. Burning coal in millions of fires is not the same as burning oil in a car. And yes, I was around in 1956 and 1968.

[Lighthouse]

4 hours ago, Fan The Flames said:

You're moving the goal posts. You said you'd struggle to find a ulez compliant sub 2k car, I found that in 20 seconds.

Perhaps I should have been more specific. A ULEZ compliant car which is sub £2k, big enough for a family, well built, reliable, affordable to run, comfortable and as Weston pointed out doesn’t actually emit more pollution and cost more to tax as a result. 

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

Perhaps I should have been more specific. A ULEZ compliant car which is sub £2k, big enough for a family, well built, reliable, affordable to run, comfortable and as Weston pointed out doesn’t actually emit more pollution and cost more to tax as a result. 

To be fair, if you are poor and live in London you probably already drive a badly built, uncomfortable and unreliable old piece of shit anyway so 2K towards a new one might mean a step up as well as reducing emissions. 

[buctootim]

3 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I'm assuming that is why there is legislation covering ALL diesel cars since 2014 (source) regarding particulate filters.  There should be no need for ULEZ if legislation already exists to control this pollution, unless of course the aim is to generate income.

On that note, can anyone find any concrete evidence of what the money raised is spent on?  There are several wishy washy statements about re-investing in transport (including walking FFS!), but no hard figures available.  Although it does seem as if a large chunk of the money raised is being used to set up the expanded ULEZ to generate yet more income!

Its not a one shot and done thing. Reduction in pollution and increases in fuel efficiency are incremental. My 2006 diesel has a particulatate filter but doesnt meet current standards for nitrogen oxides. Pretty all petrol cars made since 2010 meet the ULEZ standards. So get a 13 year old Fiat Punto and no ULEZ charge. These kinda desperate attempts to make a big deal out of what the ex saviour, hero and glorious leader Johnson proposed is lame.     

[buctootim]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

Perhaps I should have been more specific. A ULEZ compliant car which is sub £2k, big enough for a family, well built, reliable, affordable to run, comfortable and as Weston pointed out doesn’t actually emit more pollution and cost more to tax as a result. 

Pretty much any petrol car after 2010 - like this one

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202308180946819?sort=relevance&advertising-location=at_cars&body-type=MPV&fuel-type=Electric%2CPetrol%2CPetrol Hybrid&include-delivery-option=on&maximum-mileage=80000&postcode=EN10 6FG&price-from=&price-to=2000&year-from=2010&fromsra

Edited 22 August, 2023 by buctootim

[Fan The Flames]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

Perhaps I should have been more specific. A ULEZ compliant car which is sub £2k, big enough for a family, well built, reliable, affordable to run, comfortable and as Weston pointed out doesn’t actually emit more pollution and cost more to tax as a result. 

There are arguments against ULEZ and I'm sympathetic to some of them, but the one that it's unaffordable to be able to change to a compliant car is very very weak.

[Fan The Flames]

3 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I'm assuming that is why there is legislation covering ALL diesel cars since 2014 (source) regarding particulate filters.  There should be no need for ULEZ if legislation already exists to control this pollution, unless of course the aim is to generate income.

On that note, can anyone find any concrete evidence of what the money raised is spent on?  There are several wishy washy statements about re-investing in transport (including walking FFS!), but no hard figures available.  Although it does seem as if a large chunk of the money raised is being used to set up the expanded ULEZ to generate yet more income!

If it was just about money generation, then why not ban the same aged petrol cars or just have it as a congestion charge.

[east-stand-nic]

15 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

He distorts things to suit his narrative. Early on he says that human activity is responsible for 1% of the heat energy in the atmosphere. Whilst this may be true, and the IPCC report does not have anything to say on this figure, it is disingenuous.

The bulk of the heat energy in the atmosphere comes from the sun - without it the Earth would be a frozen inert block, and this energy keeps the temperature at a range suitable for life - currently at about 288 Kelvin average by his reckoning, ( 288 degrees above absolute zero - although he does seem to get his numbers confused as he actually says that the average temperature is about 300K ( 27C ) ). His 1% claim seems to be based on increasing this 288K, or 15 degrees Celcius average, by a small percentage, perhaps to 291K. Measured in Kelvin this seems to be insignificant, but this actually increases things by more than the 1.5 degrees the IPCC sets as a threshhold.

 

What the IPCC report does state is "Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming, "

Which is exactly what governments do, to suit their taxation agenda. I wonder if wind blows in the ULEZ or is the air there static?

[buctootim]

1 minute ago, east-stand-nic said:

Which is exactly what governments do, to suit their taxation agenda. I wonder if wind blows in the ULEZ or is the air there static?

You know blowing pollution away from its source doesnt make it magically disappear right? What happens on the days the wind doesnt blow - hold your breath for 24 hours till it picks up again? 

[east-stand-nic]

1 minute ago, buctootim said:

You know blowing pollution away from its source doesnt make it magically disappear right? What happens on the days the wind doesnt blow - hold your breath for 24 hours till it picks up again? 

Missed the point as ever as you cannot and will not face the truth that it is all lies. Wind blows all the time. Northolt is not so far out of the ULEZ, you are really trying to tell me that NONE of the pollution will make it there ever? LOL. Just stop believing everything you are told and wake up. It's another excuse to tax, charge and control.

[buctootim]

9 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

Missed the point as ever as you cannot and will not face the truth that it is all lies. Wind blows all the time. Northolt is not so far out of the ULEZ, you are really trying to tell me that NONE of the pollution will make it there ever? LOL. Just stop believing everything you are told and wake up. It's another excuse to tax, charge and control.

You think governments shouldnt tax and everything should be free?   

[buctootim]

From those annoying activists  / Bilderbergers the Royal Society of Chemistry 

 https://www.chemistryworld.com/features/urban-air-pollution/2500224.article

 

This year, it took some London streets just five days to exceed the entire year’s worth of permitted hours above 200µg/m³, with Putney High Street, Oxford Street and Brixton Road among the offenders. In 2015, Oxford Street had reportedly exceeded the total permitted time in just four days.

Heading to the courtroom

It’s perhaps not surprising therefore to learn that London is believed to be the worst city in Europe for NO₂ levels, thanks largely to high numbers of diesel-powered vehicles. And public awareness of the issue is growing, in part due to a high profile court case currently being brought against the UK government over the matter.

[badgerx16]

8 minutes ago, buctootim said:

You think governments shouldnt tax and everything should be free?   

All complaint and no solution.

It's not as if congestion charging was thought up by those 'small Government' 'low taxation' Tories.

Edited 22 August, 2023 by badgerx16

[Lighthouse]

33 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

There are arguments against ULEZ and I'm sympathetic to some of them, but the one that it's unaffordable to be able to change to a compliant car is very very weak.

And the argument that people should be trading in perfectly decent cars to go and buy a sub £2k, 15 plus year old cheap banger to save the planet is even weaker.

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

And the argument that people should be trading in perfectly decent cars to go and buy a sub £2k, 15 plus year old cheap banger to save the planet is even weaker.

If your "perfectly decent car" is petrol engined and less than 18 years old it should be fine as it is EU4 compliant, so no worries.

[Sheaf Saint]

5 hours ago, Scally42 said:

I go back to this image ofthe Mer de Glace on Mont Blanc, the glacier has been melting since 1820, the Little Ice Age ended in 1850. So you and the IPCC believe that the majority of the warming since the end of the Little Ice Age is mainly human caused depsite the face that the earth would obviously have been warming considerably as we were coming out of a very cool period, the image below confirms this as as you can see the glacier has been melting since 1820. To put the blame of a warming world on humans is stretching it a bit as the world was warming before we started pumping co2 into it

Yes, the world was warming prior to the industrial revolution as we were still coming out of an ice age, but the drastic increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 150 years has accelerated that process and caused the planet to warm up at an unprecedented rate. How, after all these years, do you still not get this? You think posting an old photo with some dubious lines based on unknown data drawn on it disproves that? 

If you really want to see some evidence that human activity is the primary cause of the current rate of warming, have a read of this study from 2006. It confirms that the vast majority of energy in the atmosphere at the Earth's surface corresponds exactly to the wavelength at which it is captured by CO2. 

                  

So we know that levels of atmospheric CO2 have risen markedly due to human emissions, we know that higher concentrations of CO2 in air lead to greater heat retention, and we have firm evidence that the majority of the energy being stored in the atmosphere is being captured by CO2. 

[buctootim]

9 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

And the argument that people should be trading in perfectly decent cars to go and buy a sub £2k, 15 plus year old cheap banger to save the planet is even weaker.

What is your argument exactly? do you even know? Are you raging against taxation?  against pollution controls? against a Londoner having to sell their old diesel and buy an old petrol car funded by £2,000 of taxpayers money instead?     

The WHO set air quality standards. Until ULEZ London routinely massively breached them, now its doesnt. As Fan the Flames said, there are some legitmate pro and con arguments for the ULEZ expansion, but your posts aren't any of them .  

Edited 22 August, 2023 by buctootim

[buctootim]

1 minute ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Yes, the world was warming prior to the industrial revolution as we were still coming out of an ice age, but the drastic increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 150 years has accelerated that process and caused the planet to warm up at an unprecedented rate. How, after all these years, do you still not get this? You think posting an old photo with some dubious lines based on unknown data drawn on it disproves that? 

If you really want to see some evidence that human activity is the primary cause of the current rate of warming, have a read of this study from 2006. It confirms that the vast majority of energy in the atmosphere at the Earth's surface corresponds exactly to the wavelength at which it is captured by CO2. 

                  

So we know that levels of atmospheric CO2 have risen markedly due to human emissions, we know that higher concentrations of CO2 in air lead to greater heat retention, and we have firm evidence that the majority of the energy being stored in the atmosphere is being captured by CO2. 

Scally isnt big on facts or logic. Maybe post using reference terms like Rothschild, Bilgerbergers, NWO, 5G and vaccinations instead  

[Weston Super Saint]

2 minutes ago, buctootim said:

What is your argument exactly? do you even know? Are you raging against taxation?  against pollution controls? against a Londoner having to sell their old diesel and buy an old petrol car funded by £2,000 of taxpayers money instead?     

The WHO set air quality standards. Until ULEZ London routinely massively breached them, now its doesnt. As Fan the Flames said, there are some legitmate pro and con arguments for the ULEZ expansion, but your posts aren't any of them .  

They won't be selling the old car, it will be scrapped. Not great for "reuse and recycle" initiatives

[Weston Super Saint]

46 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

If it was just about money generation, then why not ban the same aged petrol cars or just have it as a congestion charge.

ULEZ is on top of the congestion charge.

[buctootim]

1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said:

They won't be selling the old car, it will be scrapped. Not great for "reuse and recycle" initiatives

I'm sure they will be broken down for parts to keep other old, non London, cars on the road for even longer  

[badgerx16]

Just now, Weston Super Saint said:

ULEZ is on top of the congestion charge.

But whilst all cars are liable for the CC charging zone, only non-compliant ones pay for ULEZ. As Fan the Flames said, if this was solely a taxation scam then just extend the CC zone.

[Whitey Grandad]

58 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

There are arguments against ULEZ and I'm sympathetic to some of them, but the one that it's unaffordable to be able to change to a compliant car is very very weak.

But what about those who live outside the ULEZ a who up until now have been spending their time driving into it for a multitude of purposes such as work, leisure, specialist shopping? Are they going to scrap their perfectly good car just so they can continue with their routines or are they going to go elsewhere?

Then what happens to those whose livelihoods depend on these extra earnings? They will be poorer and their air won’t be any cleaner. Poverty is an even bigger driver of poor health than air quality.

[Weston Super Saint]

34 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

But whilst all cars are liable for the CC charging zone, only non-compliant ones pay for ULEZ. As Fan the Flames said, if this was solely a taxation scam then just extend the CC zone.

Whilst at the moment it predominantly targets diesel cars that have particulate filters and legislation in place to reduce the level of particulate output, so the additional taxation on those vehicles is not needed.  Levels will come down naturally once older cars are replaced.

If it truly WAS about air quality, non compliant vehicles would be banned completely and not allowed to continue polluting just because they've swelled the coffers!

Not that I give a shit as I don't go to that there London and on the rare occasions I visit Bristol my car is compliant. It just seems unnecessary to have these zones on top of the legislation - but since Boris was involved originally, it's not a surprise!

[badgerx16]

Greater Manchester shelved it's original ULEZ scheme then produced Plan B, whereby charges would only apply to commercial vehicles entering the city centre, and currently has stopped everything whilst new 'modelling' is carried out.

Edited 22 August, 2023 by badgerx16

[Scally42]

2 hours ago, buctootim said:

Scally isnt big on facts or logic. Maybe post using reference terms like Rothschild, Bilgerbergers, NWO, 5G and vaccinations instead  

The fact is nobody has shown any evidence that what was said in that interview with Steven Koonin is not correct

[badgerx16]

12 minutes ago, Scally42 said:

The fact is nobody has shown any evidence that what was said in that interview with Steven Koonin is not correct

Where, other than the words of Koonin, is the evidence he IS correct ?

[Scally42]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Where, other than the words of Koonin, is the evidence he IS correct ?

That's the whole reason for putting the video up, if you think he's wrong then let us know how. The IPCC report is free to download