Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hilarious if you don't like trump. If you're impartial its a bit strange, there are people waiting to video her reaction. She anticipates his arrival. It's just all a little strange for me." . I don't like either of them so I found it extra funny. Two mentally ill people triggering each other off while the media drools for headlines. Im geta and I'm here to take your hairpiece into the future for carbon capture because my childhoods been taken from me...I mean I hardly had any excitement this summer in a carbon fibre racing boat while I told the UN to FUCK OFF. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ah yes, nothing quite shows the intelligence and maturity of the 'adults' as cyber bullying a 16 year old girl because of the way she looks and the message of her speech (in a foreign language, she is NOT a native English speaker) at a petulant man-child who then uses his speech to the same body to boast about how great he is and about how many Nobel Prises he should be awarded because of his greatness, rather than calmly explaining why the 16 year old girl is wrong. Of course no one has been able to do the latter because she is right so lets pile on and add our little bit to the cyber bullying. Because you are unpaid, unthinking, corporate shills for the petrochemical, fossil fuel and logging industries. Shame on you all!" . Meh, it was still hilarious, even the left eye squinted like the evil bond baddy. Do you expect me to cut c02 ms geta! ... No Mr trumpy I expect you to die  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://youtu.be/8455KEDitpU We're all being taken for a ride. Fear is control. " Just watched it very interesting. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://youtu.be/8455KEDitpU We're all being taken for a ride. Fear is control. Just watched it very interesting." Shows you can basically prove whatever you like. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Finally there is help out there.! The Greta Thunberg help line is now live for all you adults angry at a child..It’s good to talk it out..It’s a free service like the Samaritans.. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x49P_ZGeWq8 " Did you watch the link that was posted bob? thought it would be right up your green street and wonder what your take on it is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Come on... Don't tell me I was the only person who didn't laugh out loud at her face before thinking fuck me it's the devil and the Damien child in the same room!. She's right, the end is nigh "You are mocking a child? Well done  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"and that is exactaly why there is a child front and centre its harder for politicians to ignore a sweet looking kid what would the voters think.if your the frontman for something your the first one in firing line so her parents have some responsibility for that after all they are the ones who are sposed to protect there child" Wow. She should just shut up and stay at home like all teenagers should? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"and that is exactaly why there is a child front and centre its harder for politicians to ignore a sweet looking kid what would the voters think.if your the frontman for something your the first one in firing line so her parents have some responsibility for that after all they are the ones who are sposed to protect there child Wow. She should just shut up and stay at home like all teenagers should? "i didnt say she should stay at home and i havent slagged her off just pointin out she is the face of this generations bandwagon and if u gona put yourself out there then your gonna get shit of peeps its nothing new.personaly when i was 16 if ppl gave me shit about something i usually tild em to go fuck emselves.just goes to show no one listens to scientists but put a cute looking kid up front then politicians and celebs are falling over themselves to be pictured with her.just find it strange a 16 year old is being hailed as the saviour of the planet.but hey ho mother nature will deal with it all wen shes had enough if us.u do realise theat humans aint as important as we like to think if anything were like a virus to everything else on the planet and we keep spreading .just saying  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"watched her in a press conference yesterday one of the reporters asked her something that wasnt in her script and she didnt have a fucking clue just reinforces my opinion shes being exploited by forces bigger than her or her parents can see it all ending in tears" One.org/350.org Big business,money using a messenger they believe is beyond critism | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"watched her in a press conference yesterday one of the reporters asked her something that wasnt in her script and she didnt have a fucking clue just reinforces my opinion shes being exploited by forces bigger than her or her parents can see it all ending in tears One.org/350.org Big business,money using a messenger they believe is beyond critism" Not sure what your saying? That big business is using her to "push" an agenda of climate change to benefit themselves in some way? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"and that is exactaly why there is a child front and centre its harder for politicians to ignore a sweet looking kid what would the voters think.if your the frontman for something your the first one in firing line so her parents have some responsibility for that after all they are the ones who are sposed to protect there child Wow. She should just shut up and stay at home like all teenagers should?
i didnt say she should stay at home and i havent slagged her off just pointin out she is the face of this generations bandwagon and if u gona put yourself out there then your gonna get shit of peeps its nothing new.personaly when i was 16 if ppl gave me shit about something i usually tild em to go fuck emselves.just goes to show no one listens to scientists but put a cute looking kid up front then politicians and celebs are falling over themselves to be pictured with her.just find it strange a 16 year old is being hailed as the saviour of the planet.but hey ho mother nature will deal with it all wen shes had enough if us.u do realise theat humans aint as important as we like to think if anything were like a virus to everything else on the planet and we keep spreading .just saying "Perhaps she gives a shot in a way that you cannot conceive of? Like that chancer Malala Yousafzai who arranged to get herself shot for the publicity? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Come on... Don't tell me I was the only person who didn't laugh out loud at her face before thinking fuck me it's the devil and the Damien child in the same room!. She's right, the end is nigh
You are mocking a child?
Well done ". Well you've stole her childhood with all your flying, driving and consumerism | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Having lived alongside a President, you don't become surprised when they get close to you. She may have Autistic Spectrum Disorder but her wisdom and maturity is beyond her years, seemingly almost more emotionally intelligent than Trump. Despite desperate attempts to try to knock her by many, she's given so much more than most could ever hope to do, to help create a healthier and more sustainable future ahead for all life on earth. Be inspired by her, rather than the noxious elements around " . What's she given?. Some speeches, a few days of school, sailed in a racing boat!. Her parents live in a great big house, have loads of money, all the "grown ups" behind her have links to finance companies, hedge funds, electricity generation, banking there mostly the Uber wealthy and Uber chic. She's had the best medical care, vaccinations, clothes, upbringing, food, heating, transport all provided for her by cheap abundant fossil fuel usage and the hard labour, education, ingenuity and graft of all the "adults" she blames for everything that's wrong in the world without stopping to think of everything that's also good in the world. If you want to turn people off climate change and the inevitable disruption and dare I say it getting poorer that trying to mitigate it will cause then you can't beat being lectured to from an overly privileged adolescent and her bunch of communist self flagellating supporters.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://youtu.be/cxQjOasRvGE Now they're hiding data..." . That's nothing, have a good look where the "98% consensus" comes from. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
Check out this tin foil gimp
“Children—notably Nordic white girls with braids and red cheeks—were often used in Nazi propaganda. An old Goebbels technique! Looks like today’s progressive Left is still learning its game from an earlier Left in the 1930s” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"im not sayin she dont give a shit wat i am saying for the third time is if u are gona put yourself out there and give your opinion about somethinv expect others to give theres but because shes a 16 yr old she is abouve critisism eh? the wirld dont work that wat no matter how much you would like it to.theres 7 or 8 billion people on the planet and the majority are to busy living there lives to give much of a fuck.know you cant comprehend that but thats life" She is receiving abuse about who she is and unsubstantiated claims are being made about her being controlled. You are making unsubstantiated claims. Abuse and criticism are rather different. As usual it's a diversion away from what she is talking about. Nobody gives a fuck until it effects them. Then it's suddenly rather important. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://youtu.be/cxQjOasRvGE Now they're hiding data.... That's nothing, have a good look where the "98% consensus" comes from. "You claim knowledg but you really don't do much work. You just repeat an empty phrase that suits your opinion. Bit of a BoJo really
This is one of the studies (one of) that gives the consensus figure:
J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://youtu.be/cxQjOasRvGE Now they're hiding data..." No, they really aren't. This is the current published NASA data. Starting in 1880. The opposite of what's claimed in your video
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://youtu.be/cxQjOasRvGE Now they're hiding data... No, they really aren't. This is the current published NASA data. Starting in 1880. The opposite of what's claimed in your video
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/"I just responded to a YouTube clip from some random posted by some other random which is manifestly false. Doh! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just another arse telling us all what to do .bit like sting .bono .prince harry..charles ..need i go on ...whilst they clock up more miles than the rest of is ...all twats ...and now Greta garbage ...who next...could not give a shite" I’m sure the view from your sphincter is glorious..  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just another arse telling us all what to do .bit like sting .bono .prince harry..charles ..need i go on ...whilst they clock up more miles than the rest of is ...all twats ...and now Greta garbage ...who next...could not give a shite" You do not give a shit about anyone or anything other than yourself. You have made that clear. Well done | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://youtu.be/cxQjOasRvGE Now they're hiding data.... That's nothing, have a good look where the "98% consensus" comes from.
You claim knowledg but you really don't do much work. You just repeat an empty phrase that suits your opinion.
Bit of a BoJo really
This is one of the studies (one of) that gives the consensus figure:
J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”". Well it's 1 of 4 sited by the IPCC, you've picked the strongest one and even he's a giant the world is doomed fear mongerer. Are humans causing the climate to change, well duh .
12,000 papers and only 64 of them showed humans causing serious warming problems.
64% of the papers had no bias either way 34% showed human induced warming of which of that 34%, 97% of climate change scientists are agreed.
Wow, were all doomed in 12 years and definitely need flogging for robbing poor (rich) gettaaa of her childhood.
People who think the world is doomed in 12 years are loons only 1.4% of peer reviewed papers support that egg head conspiracy theory .
Your welcome | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://youtu.be/cxQjOasRvGE Now they're hiding data.... That's nothing, have a good look where the "98% consensus" comes from.
You claim knowledg but you really don't do much work. You just repeat an empty phrase that suits your opinion.
Bit of a BoJo really
This is one of the studies (one of) that gives the consensus figure:
J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”.
Well it's 1 of 4 sited by the IPCC, you've picked the strongest one and even he's a giant the world is doomed fear mongerer.
Are humans causing the climate to change, well duh .
12,000 papers and only 64 of them showed humans causing serious warming problems.
64% of the papers had no bias either way 34% showed human induced warming of which of that 34%, 97% of climate change scientists are agreed.
Wow, were all doomed in 12 years and definitely need flogging for robbing poor (rich) gettaaa of her childhood.
People who think the world is doomed in 12 years are loons only 1.4% of peer reviewed papers support that egg head conspiracy theory .
Your welcome"You did that calculation? Read all of the papers and analysed their conclusions? I don't think so
Cut and paste from a denial site. Which one?
You're a fraud.
You're welcome  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
Plus the girl with pigtails is obviously a tool of George Soros and his nefarious plan to get us to reduce greenhouse gases .Its what billionaires do .
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://youtu.be/cxQjOasRvGE Now they're hiding data.... That's nothing, have a good look where the "98% consensus" comes from.
You claim knowledg but you really don't do much work. You just repeat an empty phrase that suits your opinion.
Bit of a BoJo really
This is one of the studies (one of) that gives the consensus figure:
J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”.
Well it's 1 of 4 sited by the IPCC, you've picked the strongest one and even he's a giant the world is doomed fear mongerer.
Are humans causing the climate to change, well duh .
12,000 papers and only 64 of them showed humans causing serious warming problems.
64% of the papers had no bias either way 34% showed human induced warming of which of that 34%, 97% of climate change scientists are agreed.
Wow, were all doomed in 12 years and definitely need flogging for robbing poor (rich) gettaaa of her childhood.
People who think the world is doomed in 12 years are loons only 1.4% of peer reviewed papers support that egg head conspiracy theory .
Your welcome
You did that calculation? Read all of the papers and analysed their conclusions?
I don't think so
Cut and paste from a denial site. Which one?
You're a fraud.
You're welcome ". It's peer reviewed!. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Far right tin foilers don’t need facts .Theyve got YouTube videos...
Plus the girl with pigtails is obviously a tool of George Soros and his nefarious plan to get us to reduce greenhouse gases .Its what billionaires do .
". Says the man from twatter | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"https://youtu.be/cxQjOasRvGE Now they're hiding data.... That's nothing, have a good look where the "98% consensus" comes from.
You claim knowledg but you really don't do much work. You just repeat an empty phrase that suits your opinion.
Bit of a BoJo really
This is one of the studies (one of) that gives the consensus figure:
J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”.
Well it's 1 of 4 sited by the IPCC, you've picked the strongest one and even he's a giant the world is doomed fear mongerer.
Are humans causing the climate to change, well duh .
12,000 papers and only 64 of them showed humans causing serious warming problems.
64% of the papers had no bias either way 34% showed human induced warming of which of that 34%, 97% of climate change scientists are agreed.
Wow, were all doomed in 12 years and definitely need flogging for robbing poor (rich) gettaaa of her childhood.
People who think the world is doomed in 12 years are loons only 1.4% of peer reviewed papers support that egg head conspiracy theory .
Your welcome
You did that calculation? Read all of the papers and analysed their conclusions?
I don't think so
Cut and paste from a denial site. Which one?
You're a fraud.
You're welcome .
It's peer reviewed!.
"Excellent. What is? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn't matter one bit if humans are adding to global warming or not. What is undeniable is the climate is warming, whether it is due to Sun spots, Earths orbit through space, Volcanic activity or Human actions it doesn't make any difference. For the first time in earth's four billion year history there is a species inhabiting her that can alter that change. Should it not be everyone's responsibility to do everything they can to make our home safer for everyone." If the earth warms and cools due to solar activity, how can we help change that? When the warming phase ends and we head back to a polar ice cap down as far as Watford, how will we as a species alter that? More tax ? More population control? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn't matter one bit if humans are adding to global warming or not. What is undeniable is the climate is warming, whether it is due to Sun spots, Earths orbit through space, Volcanic activity or Human actions it doesn't make any difference. For the first time in earth's four billion year history there is a species inhabiting her that can alter that change. Should it not be everyone's responsibility to do everything they can to make our home safer for everyone. If the earth warms and cools due to solar activity, how can we help change that? When the warming phase ends and we head back to a polar ice cap down as far as Watford, how will we as a species alter that? More tax ? More population control?" How about looking at the actual data rather than incorrect conspiracy videos which you claim to be equivalent? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://youtu.be/cxQjOasRvGE Now they're hiding data.... That's nothing, have a good look where the "98% consensus" comes from.
You claim knowledg but you really don't do much work. You just repeat an empty phrase that suits your opinion.
Bit of a BoJo really
This is one of the studies (one of) that gives the consensus figure:
J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”.
Well it's 1 of 4 sited by the IPCC, you've picked the strongest one and even he's a giant the world is doomed fear mongerer.
Are humans causing the climate to change, well duh .
12,000 papers and only 64 of them showed humans causing serious warming problems.
64% of the papers had no bias either way 34% showed human induced warming of which of that 34%, 97% of climate change scientists are agreed.
Wow, were all doomed in 12 years and definitely need flogging for robbing poor (rich) gettaaa of her childhood.
People who think the world is doomed in 12 years are loons only 1.4% of peer reviewed papers support that egg head conspiracy theory .
Your welcome
You did that calculation? Read all of the papers and analysed their conclusions?
I don't think so
Cut and paste from a denial site. Which one?
You're a fraud.
You're welcome .
It's peer reviewed!.
Excellent.
What is? ". Everything I wrote. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn't matter one bit if humans are adding to global warming or not. What is undeniable is the climate is warming, whether it is due to Sun spots, Earths orbit through space, Volcanic activity or Human actions it doesn't make any difference. For the first time in earth's four billion year history there is a species inhabiting her that can alter that change. Should it not be everyone's responsibility to do everything they can to make our home safer for everyone. If the earth warms and cools due to solar activity, how can we help change that? When the warming phase ends and we head back to a polar ice cap down as far as Watford, how will we as a species alter that? More tax ? More population control? How about looking at the actual data rather than incorrect conspiracy videos which you claim to be equivalent?" You're claiming ice-ages and interacial periods don't exist now are you? Amazing how one minute you'll tell us all not to believe what we read in the papers, but then we shouldn't question them the next.... Any alternate view is a conspiracy... such as looking at looking term data! , i could take you to the beach on an ebbing tide for 3 hours and convince you the sea level was falling...
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn't matter one bit if humans are adding to global warming or not. What is undeniable is the climate is warming, whether it is due to Sun spots, Earths orbit through space, Volcanic activity or Human actions it doesn't make any difference. For the first time in earth's four billion year history there is a species inhabiting her that can alter that change. Should it not be everyone's responsibility to do everything they can to make our home safer for everyone. If the earth warms and cools due to solar activity, how can we help change that? When the warming phase ends and we head back to a polar ice cap down as far as Watford, how will we as a species alter that? More tax ? More population control? How about looking at the actual data rather than incorrect conspiracy videos which you claim to be equivalent? You're claiming ice-ages and interacial periods don't exist now are you? Amazing how one minute you'll tell us all not to believe what we read in the papers, but then we shouldn't question them the next.... Any alternate view is a conspiracy... such as looking at looking term data! , i could take you to the beach on an ebbing tide for 3 hours and convince you the sea level was falling...
"Nope. I'm saying that scientific research is acceptable when building satellites or treating illness but a random punter on YouTube is more reliable when you don't like the answer. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://youtu.be/cxQjOasRvGE Now they're hiding data.... That's nothing, have a good look where the "98% consensus" comes from.
You claim knowledg but you really don't do much work. You just repeat an empty phrase that suits your opinion.
Bit of a BoJo really
This is one of the studies (one of) that gives the consensus figure:
J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”.
Well it's 1 of 4 sited by the IPCC, you've picked the strongest one and even he's a giant the world is doomed fear mongerer.
Are humans causing the climate to change, well duh .
12,000 papers and only 64 of them showed humans causing serious warming problems.
64% of the papers had no bias either way 34% showed human induced warming of which of that 34%, 97% of climate change scientists are agreed.
Wow, were all doomed in 12 years and definitely need flogging for robbing poor (rich) gettaaa of her childhood.
People who think the world is doomed in 12 years are loons only 1.4% of peer reviewed papers support that egg head conspiracy theory .
Your welcome
You did that calculation? Read all of the papers and analysed their conclusions?
I don't think so
Cut and paste from a denial site. Which one?
You're a fraud.
You're welcome .
It's peer reviewed!.
Excellent.
What is? .
Everything I wrote.
"Which is from where? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn't matter one bit if humans are adding to global warming or not. What is undeniable is the climate is warming, whether it is due to Sun spots, Earths orbit through space, Volcanic activity or Human actions it doesn't make any difference. For the first time in earth's four billion year history there is a species inhabiting her that can alter that change. Should it not be everyone's responsibility to do everything they can to make our home safer for everyone. If the earth warms and cools due to solar activity, how can we help change that? When the warming phase ends and we head back to a polar ice cap down as far as Watford, how will we as a species alter that? More tax ? More population control?" So can i assume clem your prediction is for global cooling over the next decade?? The sun has just entered the solar “minimum “ of its cycle and it would be logical if solar activity is the main driver of climate change we should experience a cooling effect. You might want to google what we know about our star and other similar stars in our galactic neighbourhood and their cycles of activity..It’s all very interesting and should be on your radar if you wish to place the blame on our sun and not on human activity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn't matter one bit if humans are adding to global warming or not. What is undeniable is the climate is warming, whether it is due to Sun spots, Earths orbit through space, Volcanic activity or Human actions it doesn't make any difference. For the first time in earth's four billion year history there is a species inhabiting her that can alter that change. Should it not be everyone's responsibility to do everything they can to make our home safer for everyone. If the earth warms and cools due to solar activity, how can we help change that? When the warming phase ends and we head back to a polar ice cap down as far as Watford, how will we as a species alter that? More tax ? More population control? So can i assume clem your prediction is for global cooling over the next decade?? The sun has just entered the solar “minimum “ of its cycle and it would be logical if solar activity is the main driver of climate change we should experience a cooling effect. You might want to google what we know about our star and other similar stars in our galactic neighbourhood and their cycles of activity..It’s all very interesting and should be on your radar if you wish to place the blame on our sun and not on human activity. " Bob, you know ice ages don't run on 10 yearly cycles. Are you saying that we can prevent the next ice age, is this why China and India are burning more fossil fuel than ever before to save us all! Or is it because all their scientists are thick as fuck and us westerns are much more intelligent? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn't matter one bit if humans are adding to global warming or not. What is undeniable is the climate is warming, whether it is due to Sun spots, Earths orbit through space, Volcanic activity or Human actions it doesn't make any difference. For the first time in earth's four billion year history there is a species inhabiting her that can alter that change. Should it not be everyone's responsibility to do everything they can to make our home safer for everyone. If the earth warms and cools due to solar activity, how can we help change that? When the warming phase ends and we head back to a polar ice cap down as far as Watford, how will we as a species alter that? More tax ? More population control? So can i assume clem your prediction is for global cooling over the next decade?? The sun has just entered the solar “minimum “ of its cycle and it would be logical if solar activity is the main driver of climate change we should experience a cooling effect. You might want to google what we know about our star and other similar stars in our galactic neighbourhood and their cycles of activity..It’s all very interesting and should be on your radar if you wish to place the blame on our sun and not on human activity. Bob, you know ice ages don't run on 10 yearly cycles. Are you saying that we can prevent the next ice age, is this why China and India are burning more fossil fuel than ever before to save us all! Or is it because all their scientists are thick as fuck and us westerns are much more intelligent?" I’m saying the sun has very little bearing on the recent anomalous increase in temperature. We know a fair bit about ice ages and there cause. Im not going to explain here the earths orbital changes or axis tilts or reduced co2 in the atmosphere before ice ages .You can find that all out yourself. We do know what a runaway greenhouse effect looks like. It’s looks like earths twin sister the planet Venus .You can find out if it’s a holiday destination or not
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn't matter one bit if humans are adding to global warming or not. What is undeniable is the climate is warming, whether it is due to Sun spots, Earths orbit through space, Volcanic activity or Human actions it doesn't make any difference. For the first time in earth's four billion year history there is a species inhabiting her that can alter that change. Should it not be everyone's responsibility to do everything they can to make our home safer for everyone. If the earth warms and cools due to solar activity, how can we help change that? When the warming phase ends and we head back to a polar ice cap down as far as Watford, how will we as a species alter that? More tax ? More population control? So can i assume clem your prediction is for global cooling over the next decade?? The sun has just entered the solar “minimum “ of its cycle and it would be logical if solar activity is the main driver of climate change we should experience a cooling effect. You might want to google what we know about our star and other similar stars in our galactic neighbourhood and their cycles of activity..It’s all very interesting and should be on your radar if you wish to place the blame on our sun and not on human activity. Bob, you know ice ages don't run on 10 yearly cycles. Are you saying that we can prevent the next ice age, is this why China and India are burning more fossil fuel than ever before to save us all! Or is it because all their scientists are thick as fuck and us westerns are much more intelligent? I’m saying the sun has very little bearing on the recent anomalous increase in temperature. We know a fair bit about ice ages and there cause. Im not going to explain here the earths orbital changes or axis tilts or reduced co2 in the atmosphere before ice ages .You can find that all out yourself. We do know what a runaway greenhouse effect looks like. It’s looks like earths twin sister the planet Venus .You can find out if it’s a holiday destination or not
"The whole point of the data debate is the fact, that we're not experiencing an anomalous increase in temperature. It is "usual". How much land has the uk lost to rising sea levels? How many skiing holidays have been cancelled? How long must we quake in fear about the thing that is coming to get us all! (Apart from if you're Chinese or Indian of course, in fact you'd think India world be more careful since its evident that rising sea levels only affect developing countries). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's like those posters that were on the bus stops a few months ago, with a doe eyed child on each one telling us "though a SMART meter won't stop 'climate change' it's a start". Looking at it with the sunglasses from 'They Live' on it says something more like this: "Children like these are suffering, and it's all YOUR fault for not getting a smart meter in YOUR home". I'm not convinced anyone has to have a smart meter to save the world. Incidentally I hear of a study that showed people who are sceptical of climate change tend to be a lot more environmentally friendly in action than people who virtue signal till they're blue in the face about it. Strangely that seems right! I've observed at home and work, probably I'm the most conscious about recycling, saving fuel and energy etc. No that's not virtue signalling, it's just the truth lol. Pollution is a huge problem in the world so I'm glad measures have been taken, like the plastic bag charge, and yeah I can go with cardboard straws too! Please, you really don't HAVE to have a smart meter, don't let the TV bully you." I applaud your green attitude .. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's like those posters that were on the bus stops a few months ago, with a doe eyed child on each one telling us "though a SMART meter won't stop 'climate change' it's a start". Looking at it with the sunglasses from 'They Live' on it says something more like this: "Children like these are suffering, and it's all YOUR fault for not getting a smart meter in YOUR home". I'm not convinced anyone has to have a smart meter to save the world. Incidentally I hear of a study that showed people who are sceptical of climate change tend to be a lot more environmentally friendly in action than people who virtue signal till they're blue in the face about it. Strangely that seems right! I've observed at home and work, probably I'm the most conscious about recycling, saving fuel and energy etc. No that's not virtue signalling, it's just the truth lol. Pollution is a huge problem in the world so I'm glad measures have been taken, like the plastic bag charge, and yeah I can go with cardboard straws too! Please, you really don't HAVE to have a smart meter, don't let the TV bully you." i had a smart meter swapped to 100% renewable energy company and it doesnt work with them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's like those posters that were on the bus stops a few months ago, with a doe eyed child on each one telling us "though a SMART meter won't stop 'climate change' it's a start". Looking at it with the sunglasses from 'They Live' on it says something more like this: "Children like these are suffering, and it's all YOUR fault for not getting a smart meter in YOUR home". I'm not convinced anyone has to have a smart meter to save the world. Incidentally I hear of a study that showed people who are sceptical of climate change tend to be a lot more environmentally friendly in action than people who virtue signal till they're blue in the face about it. Strangely that seems right! I've observed at home and work, probably I'm the most conscious about recycling, saving fuel and energy etc. No that's not virtue signalling, it's just the truth lol. Pollution is a huge problem in the world so I'm glad measures have been taken, like the plastic bag charge, and yeah I can go with cardboard straws too! Please, you really don't HAVE to have a smart meter, don't let the TV bully you.i had a smart meter swapped to 100% renewable energy company and it doesnt work with them. "Just like Brexit? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How much land has the uk lost to rising sea levels? How many skiing holidays have been cancelled? " These are cringe worthy questions. Jesus christ. You might as well be asking that old classic 'if there's global warming why is it cold today!' | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn't matter one bit if humans are adding to global warming or not. What is undeniable is the climate is warming, whether it is due to Sun spots, Earths orbit through space, Volcanic activity or Human actions it doesn't make any difference. For the first time in earth's four billion year history there is a species inhabiting her that can alter that change. Should it not be everyone's responsibility to do everything they can to make our home safer for everyone. If the earth warms and cools due to solar activity, how can we help change that? When the warming phase ends and we head back to a polar ice cap down as far as Watford, how will we as a species alter that? More tax ? More population control? So can i assume clem your prediction is for global cooling over the next decade?? The sun has just entered the solar “minimum “ of its cycle and it would be logical if solar activity is the main driver of climate change we should experience a cooling effect. You might want to google what we know about our star and other similar stars in our galactic neighbourhood and their cycles of activity..It’s all very interesting and should be on your radar if you wish to place the blame on our sun and not on human activity. Bob, you know ice ages don't run on 10 yearly cycles. Are you saying that we can prevent the next ice age, is this why China and India are burning more fossil fuel than ever before to save us all! Or is it because all their scientists are thick as fuck and us westerns are much more intelligent? I’m saying the sun has very little bearing on the recent anomalous increase in temperature. We know a fair bit about ice ages and there cause. Im not going to explain here the earths orbital changes or axis tilts or reduced co2 in the atmosphere before ice ages .You can find that all out yourself. We do know what a runaway greenhouse effect looks like. It’s looks like earths twin sister the planet Venus .You can find out if it’s a holiday destination or not
The whole point of the data debate is the fact, that we're not experiencing an anomalous increase in temperature. It is "usual". How much land has the uk lost to rising sea levels? How many skiing holidays have been cancelled? How long must we quake in fear about the thing that is coming to get us all! (Apart from if you're Chinese or Indian of course, in fact you'd think India world be more careful since its evident that rising sea levels only affect developing countries). "There is no "data debate" unless you wish to apply a false equivalence between a couple of pseudo-scientists and the wealth of independent research before and since climate change became a "thing". Shall we discuss the vaccination "debate" too? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I see bacon is back on the menu. " yeah and steak. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I see bacon is back on the menu. yeah and steak. "But those experts were so sure it was going to give us all cancer? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I see bacon is back on the menu. yeah and steak.
But those experts were so sure it was going to give us all cancer? "That's a really oversimplified portrayal of the situation. There's been evidence that bacon is harmful. A new study suggests otherwise. This is how science often works - evidence builds up one way or the other over time. To think that because there is an apparent conflict of evidence in the world of bacon eating there is therefore good reason to doubt the massive agreement of evidence on anthropogenic global warming is kinda stupid. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think she is fabulous. You old ones always complain about something. Yet everyone thinks it's a good idea to get young people engaged. Well, what do you prefer? Ms Begum or Ms Thunberg Give the lassie some credit, for fe*k's sake you grumpy old fuckers. " She's great! There are unfortunately a lot of people who won't hear anything that means the world isn't the way they think it is, or want it to be. It's the essence of conservatism. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I see bacon is back on the menu. yeah and steak.
But those experts were so sure it was going to give us all cancer? "...and there it is. One contrary opinion being rapidly taken to pieces as it contradicts itself. However that is being presented as equivalent to a huge body of research that says the opposite and lots of publicity. To you it's a "win" against what? Scientists? Experts? What do you think that you've proven? Time to stop vaccinating children? Why not? There was a paper once... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That gobby ..face like a smacked arse kid is getting on my tits now ....get a life little one ...and stop the grown ups manipulating you " If you’re an angry red faced middle aged man now.Wait until October 7th to vent at the rebellion.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That gobby ..face like a smacked arse kid is getting on my tits now ....get a life little one ...and stop the grown ups manipulating you " Imagine if your anger was directed at the right people. Instead of a kid trying to do something positive. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Look ....if this kid was from a council estate ...they would not get the time of day ...this kid is from a privileged background spouting bollocks " You'd still shout abuse at her though right? How else would you treat a girl or a woman who speaks her mind or disagrees with you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Look ....if this kid was from a council estate ...they would not get the time of day ...this kid is from a privileged background spouting bollocks " Why does her background have any impact on what she has to say? What has she said that's bollocks? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Privilege...from the start and now eco freak ...just like old swampy ...ps I respect all woman and men from any area so don't turn it into that ....you don't have to agree with someone ...they can still talk bollocks but it's not a personal issue" "That gobby ..face like a smacked arse kid is getting on my tits now ....get a life little one ...and stop the grown ups manipulating you" What have you written here that is "respectful"? You think that she talks too much? Would you feel the same if she agreed with you? You think that she's ugly? This is pertinent how? What would be a better use of her life than her doing what she thinks will make the biggest difference to everyone? Is it possible that a 16 year old girl is able to drive her own agenda or is it completely inconceivable to you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Privilege...from the start and now eco freak ...just like old swampy ...ps I respect all woman and men from any area so don't turn it into that ....you don't have to agree with someone ...they can still talk bollocks but it's not a personal issue "That gobby ..face like a smacked arse kid is getting on my tits now ....get a life little one ...and stop the grown ups manipulating you" What have you written here that is "respectful"? You think that she talks too much? Would you feel the same if she agreed with you? You think that she's ugly? This is pertinent how? What would be a better use of her life than her doing what she thinks will make the biggest difference to everyone? Is it possible that a 16 year old girl is able to drive her own agenda or is it completely inconceivable to you?" You know when these loons attack an autistic child’s looks, shes got under these sad fucks skin.. So much winning for Greta it’s unreal.I mean who abuses disabled children or takes the piss out of any child’s looks and expects to win.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
....cars would not start | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That gobby ..face like a smacked arse kid is getting on my tits now ....get a life little one ...and stop the grown ups manipulating you " What kind of adult hurls vitriolic abuse at a 16-year-old girl with autism? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That gobby ..face like a smacked arse kid is getting on my tits now ....get a life little one ...and stop the grown ups manipulating you What kind of adult hurls vitriolic abuse at a 16-year-old girl with autism? " She's in the public eye, she's fair game. If she was supporting Brexit you'd be all over her like a rash! Your faux outrage is comedic at best! Buy mainly predictable and disappointing... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That gobby ..face like a smacked arse kid is getting on my tits now ....get a life little one ...and stop the grown ups manipulating you What kind of adult hurls vitriolic abuse at a 16-year-old girl with autism? " The same type of people who hurl it at a younger kid stood around in a Maga cap. Remember that fine thread? Some people ay. Leave the girl alone people. And attack these mystical beings pulling her strings. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That gobby ..face like a smacked arse kid is getting on my tits now ....get a life little one ...and stop the grown ups manipulating you What kind of adult hurls vitriolic abuse at a 16-year-old girl with autism? She's in the public eye, she's fair game. If she was supporting Brexit you'd be all over her like a rash! Your faux outrage is comedic at best! Buy mainly predictable and disappointing..." I can assure you I do not hurl personal abuse at any teenage girl advocating change. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She appears to be having a lovely time spreading her message. " She’s stayed on message and kept to the science her detractors just laugh at her autism and looks. She’s winning the argument and gaining momentum.This is what drives them nuts.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh happy days ...could not give a shit about her or the planet ...it's great at the moment and in 50 years...I will be gone so could not care at all ...let the young deal with it ..I leave my legacy to them x" "That gobby ..face like a smacked arse kid is getting on my tits now ....get a life little one ...and stop the grown ups manipulating you" What have you written here that is "respectful"? You think that she talks too much? Would you feel the same if she agreed with you? You think that she's ugly? This is pertinent how? What would be a better use of her life than her doing what she thinks will make the biggest difference to everyone? Is it possible that a 16 year old girl is able to drive her own agenda or is it completely inconceivable to you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh happy days ...could not give a shit about her or the planet ...it's great at the moment and in 50 years...I will be gone so could not care at all ...let the young deal with it ..I leave my legacy to them x" Horrific attitude. What's happened in your life that you've ended up like this? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh happy days ...could not give a shit about her or the planet ...it's great at the moment and in 50 years...I will be gone so could not care at all ...let the young deal with it ..I leave my legacy to them x Horrific attitude. What's happened in your life that you've ended up like this?" He enjoys attention. Some people attract attention for being positive. And some for being negative. Because they cannot find anything good to say about anyone except themselves. Not hard to work out. I'm sure there is a diagnosis for it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wow rattled ....she will have her 15 ...like old swampy did ...he achieved bollocks all ....oh he was another rich kid ...still I've spoilt her childhood...I'm pleased with that ....what crap she spouts ...maybe she traveling the world ....away from the UK will please me....and let's face it it's all good as long as I'm happy with my lot..and I am" No need to be a c**t about it though is there....move on people, theres nothing to see here | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wow rattled ....she will have her 15 ...like old swampy did ...he achieved bollocks all ....oh he was another rich kid ...still I've spoilt her childhood...I'm pleased with that ....what crap she spouts ...maybe she traveling the world ....away from the UK will please me....and let's face it it's all good as long as I'm happy with my lot..and I am" "That gobby ..face like a smacked arse kid is getting on my tits now ....get a life little one ...and stop the grown ups manipulating you" What have you written here that is "respectful"? You think that she talks too much? Would you feel the same if she agreed with you? You think that she's ugly? This is pertinent how? What would be a better use of her life than her doing what she thinks will make the biggest difference to everyone? Is it possible that a 16 year old girl is able to drive her own agenda or is it completely inconceivable to you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No i think people behind her ..a puppet ...we all have our own thoughts ...as it is a forum x" So why call her "That gobby ..face like a smacked arse kid" if someone else is to blame? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In my eyes she is but hey you love her so carry on saving the planet ...hope you don't drive fly or use carrier bags drink through a straw or fart ...do a bit xtra for me please x" "ps I respect all woman and men from any area so don't turn it into that" Unless you don't like how they look. I fly less and offset my carbon footprint. Costs me more. I don't use straws. I reuse bags or not use them when I have a cloth one available. Electric cars not ready for the distances that I driVe at a reasonable cost. The industry is pivoting though so that's something I have to wait for. I'm doing something in a soft, middle class kind of a way. I'm not bullying or insulting a sixteen year old girl though. What we consider acceptable behaviour is different. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In my eyes she is but hey you love her so carry on saving the planet ...hope you don't drive fly or use carrier bags drink through a straw or fart ...do a bit xtra for me please x "ps I respect all woman and men from any area so don't turn it into that" Unless you don't like how they look. I fly less and offset my carbon footprint. Costs me more. I don't use straws. I reuse bags or not use them when I have a cloth one available. Electric cars not ready for the distances that I driVe at a reasonable cost. The industry is pivoting though so that's something I have to wait for. I'm doing something in a soft, middle class kind of a way. I'm not bullying or insulting a sixteen year old girl though. What we consider acceptable behaviour is different." That's very true... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn't matter one bit if humans are adding to global warming or not. What is undeniable is the climate is warming, whether it is due to Sun spots, Earths orbit through space, Volcanic activity or Human actions it doesn't make any difference. For the first time in earth's four billion year history there is a species inhabiting her that can alter that change. Should it not be everyone's responsibility to do everything they can to make our home safer for everyone. If the earth warms and cools due to solar activity, how can we help change that? When the warming phase ends and we head back to a polar ice cap down as far as Watford, how will we as a species alter that? More tax ? More population control? So can i assume clem your prediction is for global cooling over the next decade?? The sun has just entered the solar “minimum “ of its cycle and it would be logical if solar activity is the main driver of climate change we should experience a cooling effect. You might want to google what we know about our star and other similar stars in our galactic neighbourhood and their cycles of activity..It’s all very interesting and should be on your radar if you wish to place the blame on our sun and not on human activity. Bob, you know ice ages don't run on 10 yearly cycles. Are you saying that we can prevent the next ice age, is this why China and India are burning more fossil fuel than ever before to save us all! Or is it because all their scientists are thick as fuck and us westerns are much more intelligent? I’m saying the sun has very little bearing on the recent anomalous increase in temperature. We know a fair bit about ice ages and there cause. Im not going to explain here the earths orbital changes or axis tilts or reduced co2 in the atmosphere before ice ages .You can find that all out yourself. We do know what a runaway greenhouse effect looks like. It’s looks like earths twin sister the planet Venus .You can find out if it’s a holiday destination or not
". It's a runaway emergency, yet for hundreds of thousands of years c02 has been a 1000ppm and 12,000ppm, in fact it was 280ppm 300 years ago the lowest it's been in a hundred thousand years and near to the lowest it could go without wiping out 70% of plant life, it's risen to 400ppm in 300 years, yes something to watch indeed, climate looming runaway disaster emergency buzzword omg we've got 12 years... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://youtu.be/cxQjOasRvGE Now they're hiding data.... That's nothing, have a good look where the "98% consensus" comes from.
You claim knowledg but you really don't do much work. You just repeat an empty phrase that suits your opinion.
Bit of a BoJo really
This is one of the studies (one of) that gives the consensus figure:
J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”.
Well it's 1 of 4 sited by the IPCC, you've picked the strongest one and even he's a giant the world is doomed fear mongerer.
Are humans causing the climate to change, well duh .
12,000 papers and only 64 of them showed humans causing serious warming problems.
64% of the papers had no bias either way 34% showed human induced warming of which of that 34%, 97% of climate change scientists are agreed.
Wow, were all doomed in 12 years and definitely need flogging for robbing poor (rich) gettaaa of her childhood.
People who think the world is doomed in 12 years are loons only 1.4% of peer reviewed papers support that egg head conspiracy theory .
Your welcome
You did that calculation? Read all of the papers and analysed their conclusions?
I don't think so
Cut and paste from a denial site. Which one?
You're a fraud.
You're welcome .
It's peer reviewed!.
Excellent.
What is? .
Everything I wrote.
Which is from where? ". Why does it matter?. Isn't that the whole purpose of peer reviewing | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn't matter one bit if humans are adding to global warming or not. What is undeniable is the climate is warming, whether it is due to Sun spots, Earths orbit through space, Volcanic activity or Human actions it doesn't make any difference. For the first time in earth's four billion year history there is a species inhabiting her that can alter that change. Should it not be everyone's responsibility to do everything they can to make our home safer for everyone. If the earth warms and cools due to solar activity, how can we help change that? When the warming phase ends and we head back to a polar ice cap down as far as Watford, how will we as a species alter that? More tax ? More population control? So can i assume clem your prediction is for global cooling over the next decade?? The sun has just entered the solar “minimum “ of its cycle and it would be logical if solar activity is the main driver of climate change we should experience a cooling effect. You might want to google what we know about our star and other similar stars in our galactic neighbourhood and their cycles of activity..It’s all very interesting and should be on your radar if you wish to place the blame on our sun and not on human activity. " . Climate isn't a constant c02 is one factor in many many others, that's why the climate models don't predict very well because we really fundamentally don't know everything but yea c02 looks like something we should be concerned about looking to reduce but there's very little evidence to suggest it will cause a catastrophe, in fact there's about as much evidence for it as there is evidence saying it won't make a blind bit of difference, the vast majority of evidence lies in the middle ground of concerning. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn't matter one bit if humans are adding to global warming or not. What is undeniable is the climate is warming, whether it is due to Sun spots, Earths orbit through space, Volcanic activity or Human actions it doesn't make any difference. For the first time in earth's four billion year history there is a species inhabiting her that can alter that change. Should it not be everyone's responsibility to do everything they can to make our home safer for everyone. If the earth warms and cools due to solar activity, how can we help change that? When the warming phase ends and we head back to a polar ice cap down as far as Watford, how will we as a species alter that? More tax ? More population control? So can i assume clem your prediction is for global cooling over the next decade?? The sun has just entered the solar “minimum “ of its cycle and it would be logical if solar activity is the main driver of climate change we should experience a cooling effect. You might want to google what we know about our star and other similar stars in our galactic neighbourhood and their cycles of activity..It’s all very interesting and should be on your radar if you wish to place the blame on our sun and not on human activity. . Climate isn't a constant c02 is one factor in many many others, that's why the climate models don't predict very well because we really fundamentally don't know everything but yea c02 looks like something we should be concerned about looking to reduce but there's very little evidence to suggest it will cause a catastrophe, in fact there's about as much evidence for it as there is evidence saying it won't make a blind bit of difference, the vast majority of evidence lies in the middle ground of concerning." Well you tell the skiing industry that, they're fucked! And i heard we lost another 25 square miles of east Anglia last night! Land that was only drained from the sea a couple of hundred years ago!  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn't matter one bit if humans are adding to global warming or not. What is undeniable is the climate is warming, whether it is due to Sun spots, Earths orbit through space, Volcanic activity or Human actions it doesn't make any difference. For the first time in earth's four billion year history there is a species inhabiting her that can alter that change. Should it not be everyone's responsibility to do everything they can to make our home safer for everyone. If the earth warms and cools due to solar activity, how can we help change that? When the warming phase ends and we head back to a polar ice cap down as far as Watford, how will we as a species alter that? More tax ? More population control? So can i assume clem your prediction is for global cooling over the next decade?? The sun has just entered the solar “minimum “ of its cycle and it would be logical if solar activity is the main driver of climate change we should experience a cooling effect. You might want to google what we know about our star and other similar stars in our galactic neighbourhood and their cycles of activity..It’s all very interesting and should be on your radar if you wish to place the blame on our sun and not on human activity. . Climate isn't a constant c02 is one factor in many many others, that's why the climate models don't predict very well because we really fundamentally don't know everything but yea c02 looks like something we should be concerned about looking to reduce but there's very little evidence to suggest it will cause a catastrophe, in fact there's about as much evidence for it as there is evidence saying it won't make a blind bit of difference, the vast majority of evidence lies in the middle ground of concerning. Well you tell the skiing industry that, they're fucked! And i heard we lost another 25 square miles of east Anglia last night! Land that was only drained from the sea a couple of hundred years ago! ". Well it's pretty fucking obvious that people, towns, cities and the whole shabang create heat, we've gone from 1 billion to 7 billion in a hundred years thanks to err fossil fuel energy giving us scientific advancement like medicine, food, heat, travel, work (evil word to the Marxists on here). Anyhow there was bound to be some warming and some warming there has been, still the population goes up not down thanks Africa mostly and to fossil fuel industrialization,Western medical breakthroughs, Western foreign aid, (oh the privilege),I mean how dare we save Africans from Ebola, it's not sustainable | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn't matter one bit if humans are adding to global warming or not. What is undeniable is the climate is warming, whether it is due to Sun spots, Earths orbit through space, Volcanic activity or Human actions it doesn't make any difference. For the first time in earth's four billion year history there is a species inhabiting her that can alter that change. Should it not be everyone's responsibility to do everything they can to make our home safer for everyone. If the earth warms and cools due to solar activity, how can we help change that? When the warming phase ends and we head back to a polar ice cap down as far as Watford, how will we as a species alter that? More tax ? More population control? So can i assume clem your prediction is for global cooling over the next decade?? The sun has just entered the solar “minimum “ of its cycle and it would be logical if solar activity is the main driver of climate change we should experience a cooling effect. You might want to google what we know about our star and other similar stars in our galactic neighbourhood and their cycles of activity..It’s all very interesting and should be on your radar if you wish to place the blame on our sun and not on human activity. . Climate isn't a constant c02 is one factor in many many others, that's why the climate models don't predict very well because we really fundamentally don't know everything but yea c02 looks like something we should be concerned about looking to reduce but there's very little evidence to suggest it will cause a catastrophe, in fact there's about as much evidence for it as there is evidence saying it won't make a blind bit of difference, the vast majority of evidence lies in the middle ground of concerning." We've been through this at length before. You said that you don't believe the science. So therefore you don't have a lot to offer in a scientific discussion. We fundamentally do know a lot. Everything you have said here is based on your own lack of knowledge. Please remember, that just because you don't understand, doesn't mean that other people, who are specialists in the field, also don't understand. The science is solid here. There is no doubt. We should be spending energy discussing what to do about it. Not trying to convince people who don't understand it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn't matter one bit if humans are adding to global warming or not. What is undeniable is the climate is warming, whether it is due to Sun spots, Earths orbit through space, Volcanic activity or Human actions it doesn't make any difference. For the first time in earth's four billion year history there is a species inhabiting her that can alter that change. Should it not be everyone's responsibility to do everything they can to make our home safer for everyone. If the earth warms and cools due to solar activity, how can we help change that? When the warming phase ends and we head back to a polar ice cap down as far as Watford, how will we as a species alter that? More tax ? More population control? So can i assume clem your prediction is for global cooling over the next decade?? The sun has just entered the solar “minimum “ of its cycle and it would be logical if solar activity is the main driver of climate change we should experience a cooling effect. You might want to google what we know about our star and other similar stars in our galactic neighbourhood and their cycles of activity..It’s all very interesting and should be on your radar if you wish to place the blame on our sun and not on human activity. . Climate isn't a constant c02 is one factor in many many others, that's why the climate models don't predict very well because we really fundamentally don't know everything but yea c02 looks like something we should be concerned about looking to reduce but there's very little evidence to suggest it will cause a catastrophe, in fact there's about as much evidence for it as there is evidence saying it won't make a blind bit of difference, the vast majority of evidence lies in the middle ground of concerning. We've been through this at length before. You said that you don't believe the science. So therefore you don't have a lot to offer in a scientific discussion. We fundamentally do know a lot. Everything you have said here is based on your own lack of knowledge. Please remember, that just because you don't understand, doesn't mean that other people, who are specialists in the field, also don't understand. The science is solid here. There is no doubt. We should be spending energy discussing what to do about it. Not trying to convince people who don't understand it." . If what you wrote were true we'd have got every climate model prediction correct instead of everyone of them being wrong. It's a 1.7 trillion dollar market, it's massive, listening to you lot you'd think it's ten Bob | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn't matter one bit if humans are adding to global warming or not. What is undeniable is the climate is warming, whether it is due to Sun spots, Earths orbit through space, Volcanic activity or Human actions it doesn't make any difference. For the first time in earth's four billion year history there is a species inhabiting her that can alter that change. Should it not be everyone's responsibility to do everything they can to make our home safer for everyone. If the earth warms and cools due to solar activity, how can we help change that? When the warming phase ends and we head back to a polar ice cap down as far as Watford, how will we as a species alter that? More tax ? More population control? So can i assume clem your prediction is for global cooling over the next decade?? The sun has just entered the solar “minimum “ of its cycle and it would be logical if solar activity is the main driver of climate change we should experience a cooling effect. You might want to google what we know about our star and other similar stars in our galactic neighbourhood and their cycles of activity..It’s all very interesting and should be on your radar if you wish to place the blame on our sun and not on human activity. . Climate isn't a constant c02 is one factor in many many others, that's why the climate models don't predict very well because we really fundamentally don't know everything but yea c02 looks like something we should be concerned about looking to reduce but there's very little evidence to suggest it will cause a catastrophe, in fact there's about as much evidence for it as there is evidence saying it won't make a blind bit of difference, the vast majority of evidence lies in the middle ground of concerning. We've been through this at length before. You said that you don't believe the science. So therefore you don't have a lot to offer in a scientific discussion. We fundamentally do know a lot. Everything you have said here is based on your own lack of knowledge. Please remember, that just because you don't understand, doesn't mean that other people, who are specialists in the field, also don't understand. The science is solid here. There is no doubt. We should be spending energy discussing what to do about it. Not trying to convince people who don't understand it.. If what you wrote were true we'd have got every climate model prediction correct instead of everyone of them being wrong. It's a 1.7 trillion dollar market, it's massive, listening to you lot you'd think it's ten Bob "There is more to this than climate models. And what's the market got to do with it? There science is solid. The only people who dispute it, are people who don't understand it. Or people who stand to make less money if/when we start to do something about the problem. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn't matter one bit if humans are adding to global warming or not. What is undeniable is the climate is warming, whether it is due to Sun spots, Earths orbit through space, Volcanic activity or Human actions it doesn't make any difference. For the first time in earth's four billion year history there is a species inhabiting her that can alter that change. Should it not be everyone's responsibility to do everything they can to make our home safer for everyone. If the earth warms and cools due to solar activity, how can we help change that? When the warming phase ends and we head back to a polar ice cap down as far as Watford, how will we as a species alter that? More tax ? More population control? So can i assume clem your prediction is for global cooling over the next decade?? The sun has just entered the solar “minimum “ of its cycle and it would be logical if solar activity is the main driver of climate change we should experience a cooling effect. You might want to google what we know about our star and other similar stars in our galactic neighbourhood and their cycles of activity..It’s all very interesting and should be on your radar if you wish to place the blame on our sun and not on human activity. . Climate isn't a constant c02 is one factor in many many others, that's why the climate models don't predict very well because we really fundamentally don't know everything but yea c02 looks like something we should be concerned about looking to reduce but there's very little evidence to suggest it will cause a catastrophe, in fact there's about as much evidence for it as there is evidence saying it won't make a blind bit of difference, the vast majority of evidence lies in the middle ground of concerning. We've been through this at length before. You said that you don't believe the science. So therefore you don't have a lot to offer in a scientific discussion. We fundamentally do know a lot. Everything you have said here is based on your own lack of knowledge. Please remember, that just because you don't understand, doesn't mean that other people, who are specialists in the field, also don't understand. The science is solid here. There is no doubt. We should be spending energy discussing what to do about it. Not trying to convince people who don't understand it.. If what you wrote were true we'd have got every climate model prediction correct instead of everyone of them being wrong. It's a 1.7 trillion dollar market, it's massive, listening to you lot you'd think it's ten Bob
There is more to this than climate models.
And what's the market got to do with it?
There science is solid. The only people who dispute it, are people who don't understand it. Or people who stand to make less money if/when we start to do something about the problem.
"Naive. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The data is really undeniable.Every year more evidence builds the case for ongoing man made climate change.You may argue the severity of consequences with this experiment we are doing with our environment.The science is solid ." So why isn't China or India worried? Russia only got interested when it realised it could rinse rubles through carbon credits.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"poland,hungary,estonia and the czech republic all veto,d the eu carbon neutral proposal for 2050 so they dont seem to bothered either.The uk government have committed to that so i suggest all the protesters get on their bikes and cycle over there to protest. "They're clearly not seeing the benefit in flogging renewables. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Taxi drivers. One just dropped me in Inverness from the airport. Protestors blah blah, doing more harm than good. But he is convinced the cause is right. What swung him was a programme by David Attenburgh on climate. Attenburgh isn't a radical. Neither is the taxi driver. They both know we have a problem, however." Flying | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"poland,hungary,estonia and the czech republic all veto,d the eu carbon neutral proposal for 2050 so they dont seem to bothered either.The uk government have committed to that so i suggest all the protesters get on their bikes and cycle over there to protest. "I believe those countries are afraid of making the transition from coal-fired energy to low-carbon and the political consequences of shutting down the mining industry. Short-term thinking governed by electoral cycles, just as we see in Trump's America. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Zero tax on aviation fuel. It's scandalous. Means it is a fraction of the price to fly from Bristol to Inverness than it is to take the train." yeah a lot quicker too long may it last. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We need high speed trains running on nuclear electric "yeah we need teleporters like in star trek but all a long way off.Until then we all have to live in the stone age. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Zero tax on aviation fuel. It's scandalous. Means it is a fraction of the price to fly from Bristol to Inverness than it is to take the train." What about the co2 though? Why don't you lead by example? Too many people preach but then follow the money.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Zero tax on aviation fuel. It's scandalous. Means it is a fraction of the price to fly from Bristol to Inverness than it is to take the train. What about the co2 though? Why don't you lead by example? Too many people preach but then follow the money.." yeah to many people breathing | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The data is really undeniable.Every year more evidence builds the case for ongoing man made climate change.You may argue the severity of consequences with this experiment we are doing with our environment.The science is solid . So why isn't China or India worried? Russia only got interested when it realised it could rinse rubles through carbon credits.." The answer is always money. Its disruptive and expensive to reduce carbon and clean up our act.There really isn’t a downside for the air to be clean in all our cities . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The data is really undeniable.Every year more evidence builds the case for ongoing man made climate change.You may argue the severity of consequences with this experiment we are doing with our environment.The science is solid . So why isn't China or India worried? Russia only got interested when it realised it could rinse rubles through carbon credits.. The answer is always money. Its disruptive and expensive to reduce carbon and clean up our act.There really isn’t a downside for the air to be clean in all our cities ." You'd think China would be all over it! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Zero tax on aviation fuel. It's scandalous. Means it is a fraction of the price to fly from Bristol to Inverness than it is to take the train. What about the co2 though? Why don't you lead by example? Too many people preach but then follow the money.." We all have a carbon footprint. I have gas central heating and do a lot of flying. But I do not run a car and use the bus for local trips. Does that make me better or worse than anyone else? No idea. I look to politicians for policy leadership. Incentivise the transition to low-carbon energy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think most people would say every child in the UK should have clean water to drink. It’s not a huge leap to expect every child in the UK should breathe clean air. " Over the last 50 years, official figures show a dramatic decrease in major air pollutants across the UK ; ammonia, nitrogen oxides, non-methane volatile organic compounds, particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5) and sulphur dioxide | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh just the UK...so you now agree ...fuck the rest of the world then who pollute more than us ....glad to see you now joined my team" I’m glad you think every child here should breath clean air. It would be nice if every child on earth drank clean water and breathed clean air.Wouldn't you say.?? Let’s start by cleaning up our backyard first.Then the rest of the world. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think most people would say every child in the UK should have clean water to drink. It’s not a huge leap to expect every child in the UK should breathe clean air. Over the last 50 years, official figures show a dramatic decrease in major air pollutants across the UK ; ammonia, nitrogen oxides, non-methane volatile organic compounds, particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5) and sulphur dioxide" Yet if you google “deaths in the UK related to air pollution .” We are talking tens of thousands every year. The governments website says “Air pollution is the biggest environmental threat to health in the UK, with between 28,000 and 36,000 deaths a year attributed to long-term exposure. “ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'd do away with modern pushchairs for a start. Look at a child being pushed along the street and see how close their faces are to car exhausts. " The ones that make me cringe are those cyclists in traffic pulling a carry-cot on wheels that sits at the same height as the vehicle exhausts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn't matter one bit if humans are adding to global warming or not. What is undeniable is the climate is warming, whether it is due to Sun spots, Earths orbit through space, Volcanic activity or Human actions it doesn't make any difference. For the first time in earth's four billion year history there is a species inhabiting her that can alter that change. Should it not be everyone's responsibility to do everything they can to make our home safer for everyone. If the earth warms and cools due to solar activity, how can we help change that? When the warming phase ends and we head back to a polar ice cap down as far as Watford, how will we as a species alter that? More tax ? More population control? So can i assume clem your prediction is for global cooling over the next decade?? The sun has just entered the solar “minimum “ of its cycle and it would be logical if solar activity is the main driver of climate change we should experience a cooling effect. You might want to google what we know about our star and other similar stars in our galactic neighbourhood and their cycles of activity..It’s all very interesting and should be on your radar if you wish to place the blame on our sun and not on human activity. . Climate isn't a constant c02 is one factor in many many others, that's why the climate models don't predict very well because we really fundamentally don't know everything but yea c02 looks like something we should be concerned about looking to reduce but there's very little evidence to suggest it will cause a catastrophe, in fact there's about as much evidence for it as there is evidence saying it won't make a blind bit of difference, the vast majority of evidence lies in the middle ground of concerning. We've been through this at length before. You said that you don't believe the science. So therefore you don't have a lot to offer in a scientific discussion. We fundamentally do know a lot. Everything you have said here is based on your own lack of knowledge. Please remember, that just because you don't understand, doesn't mean that other people, who are specialists in the field, also don't understand. The science is solid here. There is no doubt. We should be spending energy discussing what to do about it. Not trying to convince people who don't understand it.. If what you wrote were true we'd have got every climate model prediction correct instead of everyone of them being wrong. It's a 1.7 trillion dollar market, it's massive, listening to you lot you'd think it's ten Bob
There is more to this than climate models.
And what's the market got to do with it?
There science is solid. The only people who dispute it, are people who don't understand it. Or people who stand to make less money if/when we start to do something about the problem.
Naive. "In what way? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's a great way of taxing people ...and the best is the eco warriors/idiots can't see it ....blinded by science or kids" Science is knowledge and understanding about the world around us. How can any understanding and knowledge be blinding? Imagine if you understood more about the world around you more. I imagine you'd have much less hate for children who are trying to make a positive difference | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No I would not ...but tk u anyway" If more understanding and knowledge wouldn't help you to hate children like Greta less, what do you think would help? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn't matter one bit if humans are adding to global warming or not. What is undeniable is the climate is warming, whether it is due to Sun spots, Earths orbit through space, Volcanic activity or Human actions it doesn't make any difference. For the first time in earth's four billion year history there is a species inhabiting her that can alter that change. Should it not be everyone's responsibility to do everything they can to make our home safer for everyone. If the earth warms and cools due to solar activity, how can we help change that? When the warming phase ends and we head back to a polar ice cap down as far as Watford, how will we as a species alter that? More tax ? More population control? So can i assume clem your prediction is for global cooling over the next decade?? The sun has just entered the solar “minimum “ of its cycle and it would be logical if solar activity is the main driver of climate change we should experience a cooling effect. You might want to google what we know about our star and other similar stars in our galactic neighbourhood and their cycles of activity..It’s all very interesting and should be on your radar if you wish to place the blame on our sun and not on human activity. . Climate isn't a constant c02 is one factor in many many others, that's why the climate models don't predict very well because we really fundamentally don't know everything but yea c02 looks like something we should be concerned about looking to reduce but there's very little evidence to suggest it will cause a catastrophe, in fact there's about as much evidence for it as there is evidence saying it won't make a blind bit of difference, the vast majority of evidence lies in the middle ground of concerning. We've been through this at length before. You said that you don't believe the science. So therefore you don't have a lot to offer in a scientific discussion. We fundamentally do know a lot. Everything you have said here is based on your own lack of knowledge. Please remember, that just because you don't understand, doesn't mean that other people, who are specialists in the field, also don't understand. The science is solid here. There is no doubt. We should be spending energy discussing what to do about it. Not trying to convince people who don't understand it.. If what you wrote were true we'd have got every climate model prediction correct instead of everyone of them being wrong. It's a 1.7 trillion dollar market, it's massive, listening to you lot you'd think it's ten Bob
There is more to this than climate models.
And what's the market got to do with it?
There science is solid. The only people who dispute it, are people who don't understand it. Or people who stand to make less money if/when we start to do something about the problem.
". No there's not, you claim science knows all the answers, if that were the case they would be able to predict with relative accuracy the future climate. However I suggest you look at all the past predictions, there not even close, good science always has predictability built into it. All we actually know is that c02 is a greenhouse gas that's gone from 280ppm to 410ppm in a couple of hundred years with a maximum recorded temperature increase of 0.7c and a sea level rise of few inches, the extrapolation of that gets trickier and isn't as solid as you'd have us think. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn't matter one bit if humans are adding to global warming or not. What is undeniable is the climate is warming, whether it is due to Sun spots, Earths orbit through space, Volcanic activity or Human actions it doesn't make any difference. For the first time in earth's four billion year history there is a species inhabiting her that can alter that change. Should it not be everyone's responsibility to do everything they can to make our home safer for everyone. If the earth warms and cools due to solar activity, how can we help change that? When the warming phase ends and we head back to a polar ice cap down as far as Watford, how will we as a species alter that? More tax ? More population control? So can i assume clem your prediction is for global cooling over the next decade?? The sun has just entered the solar “minimum “ of its cycle and it would be logical if solar activity is the main driver of climate change we should experience a cooling effect. You might want to google what we know about our star and other similar stars in our galactic neighbourhood and their cycles of activity..It’s all very interesting and should be on your radar if you wish to place the blame on our sun and not on human activity. . Climate isn't a constant c02 is one factor in many many others, that's why the climate models don't predict very well because we really fundamentally don't know everything but yea c02 looks like something we should be concerned about looking to reduce but there's very little evidence to suggest it will cause a catastrophe, in fact there's about as much evidence for it as there is evidence saying it won't make a blind bit of difference, the vast majority of evidence lies in the middle ground of concerning. We've been through this at length before. You said that you don't believe the science. So therefore you don't have a lot to offer in a scientific discussion. We fundamentally do know a lot. Everything you have said here is based on your own lack of knowledge. Please remember, that just because you don't understand, doesn't mean that other people, who are specialists in the field, also don't understand. The science is solid here. There is no doubt. We should be spending energy discussing what to do about it. Not trying to convince people who don't understand it.. If what you wrote were true we'd have got every climate model prediction correct instead of everyone of them being wrong. It's a 1.7 trillion dollar market, it's massive, listening to you lot you'd think it's ten Bob
There is more to this than climate models.
And what's the market got to do with it?
There science is solid. The only people who dispute it, are people who don't understand it. Or people who stand to make less money if/when we start to do something about the problem.
.
No there's not, you claim science knows all the answers, if that were the case they would be able to predict with relative accuracy the future climate.
However I suggest you look at all the past predictions, there not even close, good science always has predictability built into it.
All we actually know is that c02 is a greenhouse gas that's gone from 280ppm to 410ppm in a couple of hundred years with a maximum recorded temperature increase of 0.7c and a sea level rise of few inches, the extrapolation of that gets trickier and isn't as solid as you'd have us think."Who said science has all the answers? The climate is extremely complex. No one is claiming to be able to predict individual weather events. But over the long term the predictions have been extremely accurate. And even slightly conservative. CO2 is one of many greenhouses gasses. And warms the atmosphere. There is a direct correlation between mean global temperature increase and CO2 ppm in the atmosphere. Once again. Just because you don't believe it and/or don't understand scientific method. Doesn't mean it's not happening. The only thing is means is that you don't believe or understand it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No there's not, you claim science knows all the answers, if that were the case they would be able to predict with relative accuracy the future climate. However I suggest you look at all the past predictions, there not even close, good science always has predictability built into it. All we actually know is that c02 is a greenhouse gas that's gone from 280ppm to 410ppm in a couple of hundred years with a maximum recorded temperature increase of 0.7c and a sea level rise of few inches, the extrapolation of that gets trickier and isn't as solid as you'd have us think." We also know that it takes 334j per gram to turn ice into water and that earths ice sheet are not just retreating but many have already disappeared. Clearly as we burn more fossil fuels and release more CO2 into the atmosphere with less ice to soak up the extra heat trapped in the atmosphere average global temperature will rise and the rise will accelerate as the ice sheet are exhausted. But hey, what do I know about how these things work, you clearly have a much deeper understanding of climate science and are comfortable with how things are going. Me, I would like to see action taken to reverse man made global warming and in 50 years time conservatives can complain about us lefties and all the clean air they are forced to breath. Just a thought from a scientific illiterate for you to mull over... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No there's not, you claim science knows all the answers, if that were the case they would be able to predict with relative accuracy the future climate. However I suggest you look at all the past predictions, there not even close, good science always has predictability built into it. All we actually know is that c02 is a greenhouse gas that's gone from 280ppm to 410ppm in a couple of hundred years with a maximum recorded temperature increase of 0.7c and a sea level rise of few inches, the extrapolation of that gets trickier and isn't as solid as you'd have us think. We also know that it takes 334j per gram to turn ice into water and that earths ice sheet are not just retreating but many have already disappeared. Clearly as we burn more fossil fuels and release more CO2 into the atmosphere with less ice to soak up the extra heat trapped in the atmosphere average global temperature will rise and the rise will accelerate as the ice sheet are exhausted. But hey, what do I know about how these things work, you clearly have a much deeper understanding of climate science and are comfortable with how things are going. Me, I would like to see action taken to reverse man made global warming and in 50 years time conservatives can complain about us lefties and all the clean air they are forced to breath. Just a thought from a scientific illiterate for you to mull over..." Funny how the sea ice was far less between 1972 and 1975 than it is now this data has been gathered weekly since 1970 how do you explain that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No there's not, you claim science knows all the answers, if that were the case they would be able to predict with relative accuracy the future climate. However I suggest you look at all the past predictions, there not even close, good science always has predictability built into it. All we actually know is that c02 is a greenhouse gas that's gone from 280ppm to 410ppm in a couple of hundred years with a maximum recorded temperature increase of 0.7c and a sea level rise of few inches, the extrapolation of that gets trickier and isn't as solid as you'd have us think. We also know that it takes 334j per gram to turn ice into water and that earths ice sheet are not just retreating but many have already disappeared. Clearly as we burn more fossil fuels and release more CO2 into the atmosphere with less ice to soak up the extra heat trapped in the atmosphere average global temperature will rise and the rise will accelerate as the ice sheet are exhausted. But hey, what do I know about how these things work, you clearly have a much deeper understanding of climate science and are comfortable with how things are going. Me, I would like to see action taken to reverse man made global warming and in 50 years time conservatives can complain about us lefties and all the clean air they are forced to breath. Just a thought from a scientific illiterate for you to mull over...Funny how the sea ice was far less between 1972 and 1975 than it is now this data has been gathered weekly since 1970 how do you explain that?" I'll field this one. This can easily be explained by you misunderstanding a study published in 2004 by the Journal of geophysical research, on the thickness distribution of Arctic sea ice. And ignoring the fact that sea ice isn't the important measure of mean global temperature increases and also by ignoring longer term trends. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No there's not, you claim science knows all the answers, if that were the case they would be able to predict with relative accuracy the future climate. However I suggest you look at all the past predictions, there not even close, good science always has predictability built into it. All we actually know is that c02 is a greenhouse gas that's gone from 280ppm to 410ppm in a couple of hundred years with a maximum recorded temperature increase of 0.7c and a sea level rise of few inches, the extrapolation of that gets trickier and isn't as solid as you'd have us think. We also know that it takes 334j per gram to turn ice into water and that earths ice sheet are not just retreating but many have already disappeared. Clearly as we burn more fossil fuels and release more CO2 into the atmosphere with less ice to soak up the extra heat trapped in the atmosphere average global temperature will rise and the rise will accelerate as the ice sheet are exhausted. But hey, what do I know about how these things work, you clearly have a much deeper understanding of climate science and are comfortable with how things are going. Me, I would like to see action taken to reverse man made global warming and in 50 years time conservatives can complain about us lefties and all the clean air they are forced to breath. Just a thought from a scientific illiterate for you to mull over...Funny how the sea ice was far less between 1972 and 1975 than it is now this data has been gathered weekly since 1970 how do you explain that? I'll field this one. This can easily be explained by you misunderstanding a study published in 2004 by the Journal of geophysical research, on the thickness distribution of Arctic sea ice. And ignoring the fact that sea ice isn't the important measure of mean global temperature increases and also by ignoring longer term trends." Not at all these figures were produced for the 1990 climate change talks.The rise in sea water over the the last 20000 years is around 120 meters man made? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No there's not, you claim science knows all the answers, if that were the case they would be able to predict with relative accuracy the future climate. However I suggest you look at all the past predictions, there not even close, good science always has predictability built into it. All we actually know is that c02 is a greenhouse gas that's gone from 280ppm to 410ppm in a couple of hundred years with a maximum recorded temperature increase of 0.7c and a sea level rise of few inches, the extrapolation of that gets trickier and isn't as solid as you'd have us think. We also know that it takes 334j per gram to turn ice into water and that earths ice sheet are not just retreating but many have already disappeared. Clearly as we burn more fossil fuels and release more CO2 into the atmosphere with less ice to soak up the extra heat trapped in the atmosphere average global temperature will rise and the rise will accelerate as the ice sheet are exhausted. But hey, what do I know about how these things work, you clearly have a much deeper understanding of climate science and are comfortable with how things are going. Me, I would like to see action taken to reverse man made global warming and in 50 years time conservatives can complain about us lefties and all the clean air they are forced to breath. Just a thought from a scientific illiterate for you to mull over...Funny how the sea ice was far less between 1972 and 1975 than it is now this data has been gathered weekly since 1970 how do you explain that? I'll field this one. This can easily be explained by you misunderstanding a study published in 2004 by the Journal of geophysical research, on the thickness distribution of Arctic sea ice. And ignoring the fact that sea ice isn't the important measure of mean global temperature increases and also by ignoring longer term trends.Not at all these figures were produced for the 1990 climate change talks.The rise in sea water over the the last 20000 years is around 120 meters man made? " No. But as the climate warms this will have an effect on sea levels. Rising sea levels is not the most dangerous aspect to climate change. The point is that human activity is accelerating climate change. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Do you dispute the science behind it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No there's not, you claim science knows all the answers, if that were the case they would be able to predict with relative accuracy the future climate. However I suggest you look at all the past predictions, there not even close, good science always has predictability built into it. All we actually know is that c02 is a greenhouse gas that's gone from 280ppm to 410ppm in a couple of hundred years with a maximum recorded temperature increase of 0.7c and a sea level rise of few inches, the extrapolation of that gets trickier and isn't as solid as you'd have us think. We also know that it takes 334j per gram to turn ice into water and that earths ice sheet are not just retreating but many have already disappeared. Clearly as we burn more fossil fuels and release more CO2 into the atmosphere with less ice to soak up the extra heat trapped in the atmosphere average global temperature will rise and the rise will accelerate as the ice sheet are exhausted. But hey, what do I know about how these things work, you clearly have a much deeper understanding of climate science and are comfortable with how things are going. Me, I would like to see action taken to reverse man made global warming and in 50 years time conservatives can complain about us lefties and all the clean air they are forced to breath. Just a thought from a scientific illiterate for you to mull over...Funny how the sea ice was far less between 1972 and 1975 than it is now this data has been gathered weekly since 1970 how do you explain that? I'll field this one. This can easily be explained by you misunderstanding a study published in 2004 by the Journal of geophysical research, on the thickness distribution of Arctic sea ice. And ignoring the fact that sea ice isn't the important measure of mean global temperature increases and also by ignoring longer term trends.Not at all these figures were produced for the 1990 climate change talks.The rise in sea water over the the last 20000 years is around 120 meters man made? No. But as the climate warms this will have an effect on sea levels. Rising sea levels is not the most dangerous aspect to climate change. The point is that human activity is accelerating climate change. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Do you dispute the science behind it?" I agree that the climate is changing and what i am saying is that its been changing for hundreds of thousands of years.For instance once the Sahara desert was a forest now you would think the planet must be getting warmer a forest is now a desert but no it was a lot hotter thousands of years ago when it was.It was cooling that stopped the monsoons from bringing the rain to the area and the forest dying.So explain that one to me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No there's not, you claim science knows all the answers, if that were the case they would be able to predict with relative accuracy the future climate. However I suggest you look at all the past predictions, there not even close, good science always has predictability built into it. All we actually know is that c02 is a greenhouse gas that's gone from 280ppm to 410ppm in a couple of hundred years with a maximum recorded temperature increase of 0.7c and a sea level rise of few inches, the extrapolation of that gets trickier and isn't as solid as you'd have us think. We also know that it takes 334j per gram to turn ice into water and that earths ice sheet are not just retreating but many have already disappeared. Clearly as we burn more fossil fuels and release more CO2 into the atmosphere with less ice to soak up the extra heat trapped in the atmosphere average global temperature will rise and the rise will accelerate as the ice sheet are exhausted. But hey, what do I know about how these things work, you clearly have a much deeper understanding of climate science and are comfortable with how things are going. Me, I would like to see action taken to reverse man made global warming and in 50 years time conservatives can complain about us lefties and all the clean air they are forced to breath. Just a thought from a scientific illiterate for you to mull over...Funny how the sea ice was far less between 1972 and 1975 than it is now this data has been gathered weekly since 1970 how do you explain that? I'll field this one. This can easily be explained by you misunderstanding a study published in 2004 by the Journal of geophysical research, on the thickness distribution of Arctic sea ice. And ignoring the fact that sea ice isn't the important measure of mean global temperature increases and also by ignoring longer term trends.Not at all these figures were produced for the 1990 climate change talks.The rise in sea water over the the last 20000 years is around 120 meters man made? No. But as the climate warms this will have an effect on sea levels. Rising sea levels is not the most dangerous aspect to climate change. The point is that human activity is accelerating climate change. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Do you dispute the science behind it?I agree that the climate is changing and what i am saying is that its been changing for hundreds of thousands of years.For instance once the Sahara desert was a forest now you would think the planet must be getting warmer a forest is now a desert but no it was a lot hotter thousands of years ago when it was.It was cooling that stopped the monsoons from bringing the rain to the area and the forest dying.So explain that one to me." Well of course the climate is constantly changing. The point is the all the CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere, along with other greenhouses gasses has greatly accelerated the process. All the information is out there for you to perusal. As with all science. You can choose to believe it or not. Do you believe that water boils at 100 degrees C at sea level? You can choose not to believe it. But your opinion or belief has zero impact on reality. Parts of the right wing media that support the profits of oil companies over everything else, often try to use anecdotal examples of random things, like you've mentioned above, to sow doubt into the minds of people who don't understand the science by presenting them as if they have equal significance to actual peer reviewed independent scientific studies. You're confusing individual examples of non related information with actual evidence. And quite why you're demanding I explain them, is anybody's guess. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And quite why you're demanding I explain them, is anybody's guess." It's funny, isn't it. If the people bringing up these points are so sure that the actual scientists who have studied this their whole lives haven't thought of these issues, why aren't they writing their own paper and becoming rich and famous? I know the right likes to say it's all a conspiracy and scientists are hiding the truth, but that's just divorced from reality. Scientists are competitive. If someone could show man made global warming wasn't real they'd do it and be legendarily famous and rewarded financially for the rest of their life. The truth is, of course, that they have no real idea what they're talking about when bringing up these little objections. Conservatives just get stressed by anything new, any idea that things need to change. So they cling to these little nonsense 'counter arguments' to enable them to mentally dismiss the issue and make themselves feel better. Sad. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No there's not, you claim science knows all the answers, if that were the case they would be able to predict with relative accuracy the future climate. However I suggest you look at all the past predictions, there not even close, good science always has predictability built into it. All we actually know is that c02 is a greenhouse gas that's gone from 280ppm to 410ppm in a couple of hundred years with a maximum recorded temperature increase of 0.7c and a sea level rise of few inches, the extrapolation of that gets trickier and isn't as solid as you'd have us think. We also know that it takes 334j per gram to turn ice into water and that earths ice sheet are not just retreating but many have already disappeared. Clearly as we burn more fossil fuels and release more CO2 into the atmosphere with less ice to soak up the extra heat trapped in the atmosphere average global temperature will rise and the rise will accelerate as the ice sheet are exhausted. But hey, what do I know about how these things work, you clearly have a much deeper understanding of climate science and are comfortable with how things are going. Me, I would like to see action taken to reverse man made global warming and in 50 years time conservatives can complain about us lefties and all the clean air they are forced to breath. Just a thought from a scientific illiterate for you to mull over...Funny how the sea ice was far less between 1972 and 1975 than it is now this data has been gathered weekly since 1970 how do you explain that? I'll field this one. This can easily be explained by you misunderstanding a study published in 2004 by the Journal of geophysical research, on the thickness distribution of Arctic sea ice. And ignoring the fact that sea ice isn't the important measure of mean global temperature increases and also by ignoring longer term trends.Not at all these figures were produced for the 1990 climate change talks.The rise in sea water over the the last 20000 years is around 120 meters man made? No. But as the climate warms this will have an effect on sea levels. Rising sea levels is not the most dangerous aspect to climate change. The point is that human activity is accelerating climate change. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Do you dispute the science behind it?I agree that the climate is changing and what i am saying is that its been changing for hundreds of thousands of years.For instance once the Sahara desert was a forest now you would think the planet must be getting warmer a forest is now a desert but no it was a lot hotter thousands of years ago when it was.It was cooling that stopped the monsoons from bringing the rain to the area and the forest dying.So explain that one to me. Well of course the climate is constantly changing. The point is the all the CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere, along with other greenhouses gasses has greatly accelerated the process. All the information is out there for you to perusal. As with all science. You can choose to believe it or not. Do you believe that water boils at 100 degrees C at sea level? You can choose not to believe it. But your opinion or belief has zero impact on reality. Parts of the right wing media that support the profits of oil companies over everything else, often try to use anecdotal examples of random things, like you've mentioned above, to sow doubt into the minds of people who don't understand the science by presenting them as if they have equal significance to actual peer reviewed independent scientific studies. You're confusing individual examples of non related information with actual evidence. And quite why you're demanding I explain them, is anybody's guess." So anything that does not fit with what you believe is individual data and not actual evidence?The evidence is that there is oil in the desert and i am asking you to explain it as it does not seem to fit with your man made global warming when the temperature was hotter then. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No there's not, you claim science knows all the answers, if that were the case they would be able to predict with relative accuracy the future climate. However I suggest you look at all the past predictions, there not even close, good science always has predictability built into it. All we actually know is that c02 is a greenhouse gas that's gone from 280ppm to 410ppm in a couple of hundred years with a maximum recorded temperature increase of 0.7c and a sea level rise of few inches, the extrapolation of that gets trickier and isn't as solid as you'd have us think. We also know that it takes 334j per gram to turn ice into water and that earths ice sheet are not just retreating but many have already disappeared. Clearly as we burn more fossil fuels and release more CO2 into the atmosphere with less ice to soak up the extra heat trapped in the atmosphere average global temperature will rise and the rise will accelerate as the ice sheet are exhausted. But hey, what do I know about how these things work, you clearly have a much deeper understanding of climate science and are comfortable with how things are going. Me, I would like to see action taken to reverse man made global warming and in 50 years time conservatives can complain about us lefties and all the clean air they are forced to breath. Just a thought from a scientific illiterate for you to mull over...Funny how the sea ice was far less between 1972 and 1975 than it is now this data has been gathered weekly since 1970 how do you explain that? I'll field this one. This can easily be explained by you misunderstanding a study published in 2004 by the Journal of geophysical research, on the thickness distribution of Arctic sea ice. And ignoring the fact that sea ice isn't the important measure of mean global temperature increases and also by ignoring longer term trends.Not at all these figures were produced for the 1990 climate change talks.The rise in sea water over the the last 20000 years is around 120 meters man made? No. But as the climate warms this will have an effect on sea levels. Rising sea levels is not the most dangerous aspect to climate change. The point is that human activity is accelerating climate change. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Do you dispute the science behind it?I agree that the climate is changing and what i am saying is that its been changing for hundreds of thousands of years.For instance once the Sahara desert was a forest now you would think the planet must be getting warmer a forest is now a desert but no it was a lot hotter thousands of years ago when it was.It was cooling that stopped the monsoons from bringing the rain to the area and the forest dying.So explain that one to me. Well of course the climate is constantly changing. The point is the all the CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere, along with other greenhouses gasses has greatly accelerated the process. All the information is out there for you to perusal. As with all science. You can choose to believe it or not. Do you believe that water boils at 100 degrees C at sea level? You can choose not to believe it. But your opinion or belief has zero impact on reality. Parts of the right wing media that support the profits of oil companies over everything else, often try to use anecdotal examples of random things, like you've mentioned above, to sow doubt into the minds of people who don't understand the science by presenting them as if they have equal significance to actual peer reviewed independent scientific studies. You're confusing individual examples of non related information with actual evidence. And quite why you're demanding I explain them, is anybody's guess.So anything that does not fit with what you believe is individual data and not actual evidence?The evidence is that there is oil in the desert and i am asking you to explain it as it does not seem to fit with your man made global warming when the temperature was hotter then." You appear to be so confused that it's hard to know where to start with an answer to this. Firstly I did not publish any scientific papers on climate change. I studied them for three years as part of an environmental science degree. As a scientist I don't "believe" anything, science removes the need for belief and faith and replaces them with the scientific method. Feel free to say random unrelated pieces of information like "oil in the desert". All this does is demonstrate your lack of understanding of the issue. As I said you're free to choose not to understand how science works. But your opinions and beliefs on any science based knowledge and understanding, have literally zero impact on reality. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No there's not, you claim science knows all the answers, if that were the case they would be able to predict with relative accuracy the future climate. However I suggest you look at all the past predictions, there not even close, good science always has predictability built into it. All we actually know is that c02 is a greenhouse gas that's gone from 280ppm to 410ppm in a couple of hundred years with a maximum recorded temperature increase of 0.7c and a sea level rise of few inches, the extrapolation of that gets trickier and isn't as solid as you'd have us think. We also know that it takes 334j per gram to turn ice into water and that earths ice sheet are not just retreating but many have already disappeared. Clearly as we burn more fossil fuels and release more CO2 into the atmosphere with less ice to soak up the extra heat trapped in the atmosphere average global temperature will rise and the rise will accelerate as the ice sheet are exhausted. But hey, what do I know about how these things work, you clearly have a much deeper understanding of climate science and are comfortable with how things are going. Me, I would like to see action taken to reverse man made global warming and in 50 years time conservatives can complain about us lefties and all the clean air they are forced to breath. Just a thought from a scientific illiterate for you to mull over...Funny how the sea ice was far less between 1972 and 1975 than it is now this data has been gathered weekly since 1970 how do you explain that? I'll field this one. This can easily be explained by you misunderstanding a study published in 2004 by the Journal of geophysical research, on the thickness distribution of Arctic sea ice. And ignoring the fact that sea ice isn't the important measure of mean global temperature increases and also by ignoring longer term trends.Not at all these figures were produced for the 1990 climate change talks.The rise in sea water over the the last 20000 years is around 120 meters man made? No. But as the climate warms this will have an effect on sea levels. Rising sea levels is not the most dangerous aspect to climate change. The point is that human activity is accelerating climate change. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Do you dispute the science behind it?I agree that the climate is changing and what i am saying is that its been changing for hundreds of thousands of years.For instance once the Sahara desert was a forest now you would think the planet must be getting warmer a forest is now a desert but no it was a lot hotter thousands of years ago when it was.It was cooling that stopped the monsoons from bringing the rain to the area and the forest dying.So explain that one to me. Well of course the climate is constantly changing. The point is the all the CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere, along with other greenhouses gasses has greatly accelerated the process. All the information is out there for you to perusal. As with all science. You can choose to believe it or not. Do you believe that water boils at 100 degrees C at sea level? You can choose not to believe it. But your opinion or belief has zero impact on reality. Parts of the right wing media that support the profits of oil companies over everything else, often try to use anecdotal examples of random things, like you've mentioned above, to sow doubt into the minds of people who don't understand the science by presenting them as if they have equal significance to actual peer reviewed independent scientific studies. You're confusing individual examples of non related information with actual evidence. And quite why you're demanding I explain them, is anybody's guess.So anything that does not fit with what you believe is individual data and not actual evidence?The evidence is that there is oil in the desert and i am asking you to explain it as it does not seem to fit with your man made global warming when the temperature was hotter then. You appear to be so confused that it's hard to know where to start with an answer to this. Firstly I did not publish any scientific papers on climate change. I studied them for three years as part of an environmental science degree. As a scientist I don't "believe" anything, science removes the need for belief and faith and replaces them with the scientific method. Feel free to say random unrelated pieces of information like "oil in the desert". All this does is demonstrate your lack of understanding of the issue. As I said you're free to choose not to understand how science works. But your opinions and beliefs on any science based knowledge and understanding, have literally zero impact on reality. " Fuck get over yourself mate "im a scientist i dont believe anything" and who said you published anything? So enlighten me with your superior wisdom how my "unrelated pieces of information" demonstrate my lack of understanding on the issue. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No there's not, you claim science knows all the answers, if that were the case they would be able to predict with relative accuracy the future climate. However I suggest you look at all the past predictions, there not even close, good science always has predictability built into it. All we actually know is that c02 is a greenhouse gas that's gone from 280ppm to 410ppm in a couple of hundred years with a maximum recorded temperature increase of 0.7c and a sea level rise of few inches, the extrapolation of that gets trickier and isn't as solid as you'd have us think. We also know that it takes 334j per gram to turn ice into water and that earths ice sheet are not just retreating but many have already disappeared. Clearly as we burn more fossil fuels and release more CO2 into the atmosphere with less ice to soak up the extra heat trapped in the atmosphere average global temperature will rise and the rise will accelerate as the ice sheet are exhausted. But hey, what do I know about how these things work, you clearly have a much deeper understanding of climate science and are comfortable with how things are going. Me, I would like to see action taken to reverse man made global warming and in 50 years time conservatives can complain about us lefties and all the clean air they are forced to breath. Just a thought from a scientific illiterate for you to mull over...Funny how the sea ice was far less between 1972 and 1975 than it is now this data has been gathered weekly since 1970 how do you explain that? I'll field this one. This can easily be explained by you misunderstanding a study published in 2004 by the Journal of geophysical research, on the thickness distribution of Arctic sea ice. And ignoring the fact that sea ice isn't the important measure of mean global temperature increases and also by ignoring longer term trends.Not at all these figures were produced for the 1990 climate change talks.The rise in sea water over the the last 20000 years is around 120 meters man made? No. But as the climate warms this will have an effect on sea levels. Rising sea levels is not the most dangerous aspect to climate change. The point is that human activity is accelerating climate change. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Do you dispute the science behind it?I agree that the climate is changing and what i am saying is that its been changing for hundreds of thousands of years.For instance once the Sahara desert was a forest now you would think the planet must be getting warmer a forest is now a desert but no it was a lot hotter thousands of years ago when it was.It was cooling that stopped the monsoons from bringing the rain to the area and the forest dying.So explain that one to me. Well of course the climate is constantly changing. The point is the all the CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere, along with other greenhouses gasses has greatly accelerated the process. All the information is out there for you to perusal. As with all science. You can choose to believe it or not. Do you believe that water boils at 100 degrees C at sea level? You can choose not to believe it. But your opinion or belief has zero impact on reality. Parts of the right wing media that support the profits of oil companies over everything else, often try to use anecdotal examples of random things, like you've mentioned above, to sow doubt into the minds of people who don't understand the science by presenting them as if they have equal significance to actual peer reviewed independent scientific studies. You're confusing individual examples of non related information with actual evidence. And quite why you're demanding I explain them, is anybody's guess.So anything that does not fit with what you believe is individual data and not actual evidence?The evidence is that there is oil in the desert and i am asking you to explain it as it does not seem to fit with your man made global warming when the temperature was hotter then. You appear to be so confused that it's hard to know where to start with an answer to this. Firstly I did not publish any scientific papers on climate change. I studied them for three years as part of an environmental science degree. As a scientist I don't "believe" anything, science removes the need for belief and faith and replaces them with the scientific method. Feel free to say random unrelated pieces of information like "oil in the desert". All this does is demonstrate your lack of understanding of the issue. As I said you're free to choose not to understand how science works. But your opinions and beliefs on any science based knowledge and understanding, have literally zero impact on reality. Fuck get over yourself mate "im a scientist i dont believe anything" and who said you published anything? So enlighten me with your superior wisdom how my "unrelated pieces of information" demonstrate my lack of understanding on the issue. "Swearing at me has no effect on the reality of climate change. I suggest if you want to understand the science behind it. Do some reading. There is a wealth of information out there. I am not responsible for your lack of understanding. And I would be here until the end of time explaining away any random unrelated nugget of information that you believe has some impact on the discussion. For example you wanted me to explain why there is oil in the dessert. As if this is somehow disproves that human activity accelerates climate change. It bears no relevance what so ever. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No there's not, you claim science knows all the answers, if that were the case they would be able to predict with relative accuracy the future climate. However I suggest you look at all the past predictions, there not even close, good science always has predictability built into it. All we actually know is that c02 is a greenhouse gas that's gone from 280ppm to 410ppm in a couple of hundred years with a maximum recorded temperature increase of 0.7c and a sea level rise of few inches, the extrapolation of that gets trickier and isn't as solid as you'd have us think. We also know that it takes 334j per gram to turn ice into water and that earths ice sheet are not just retreating but many have already disappeared. Clearly as we burn more fossil fuels and release more CO2 into the atmosphere with less ice to soak up the extra heat trapped in the atmosphere average global temperature will rise and the rise will accelerate as the ice sheet are exhausted. But hey, what do I know about how these things work, you clearly have a much deeper understanding of climate science and are comfortable with how things are going. Me, I would like to see action taken to reverse man made global warming and in 50 years time conservatives can complain about us lefties and all the clean air they are forced to breath. Just a thought from a scientific illiterate for you to mull over...Funny how the sea ice was far less between 1972 and 1975 than it is now this data has been gathered weekly since 1970 how do you explain that? I'll field this one. This can easily be explained by you misunderstanding a study published in 2004 by the Journal of geophysical research, on the thickness distribution of Arctic sea ice. And ignoring the fact that sea ice isn't the important measure of mean global temperature increases and also by ignoring longer term trends.Not at all these figures were produced for the 1990 climate change talks.The rise in sea water over the the last 20000 years is around 120 meters man made? No. But as the climate warms this will have an effect on sea levels. Rising sea levels is not the most dangerous aspect to climate change. The point is that human activity is accelerating climate change. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Do you dispute the science behind it?I agree that the climate is changing and what i am saying is that its been changing for hundreds of thousands of years.For instance once the Sahara desert was a forest now you would think the planet must be getting warmer a forest is now a desert but no it was a lot hotter thousands of years ago when it was.It was cooling that stopped the monsoons from bringing the rain to the area and the forest dying.So explain that one to me. Well of course the climate is constantly changing. The point is the all the CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere, along with other greenhouses gasses has greatly accelerated the process. All the information is out there for you to perusal. As with all science. You can choose to believe it or not. Do you believe that water boils at 100 degrees C at sea level? You can choose not to believe it. But your opinion or belief has zero impact on reality. Parts of the right wing media that support the profits of oil companies over everything else, often try to use anecdotal examples of random things, like you've mentioned above, to sow doubt into the minds of people who don't understand the science by presenting them as if they have equal significance to actual peer reviewed independent scientific studies. You're confusing individual examples of non related information with actual evidence. And quite why you're demanding I explain them, is anybody's guess.So anything that does not fit with what you believe is individual data and not actual evidence?The evidence is that there is oil in the desert and i am asking you to explain it as it does not seem to fit with your man made global warming when the temperature was hotter then. You appear to be so confused that it's hard to know where to start with an answer to this. Firstly I did not publish any scientific papers on climate change. I studied them for three years as part of an environmental science degree. As a scientist I don't "believe" anything, science removes the need for belief and faith and replaces them with the scientific method. Feel free to say random unrelated pieces of information like "oil in the desert". All this does is demonstrate your lack of understanding of the issue. As I said you're free to choose not to understand how science works. But your opinions and beliefs on any science based knowledge and understanding, have literally zero impact on reality. Fuck get over yourself mate "im a scientist i dont believe anything" and who said you published anything? So enlighten me with your superior wisdom how my "unrelated pieces of information" demonstrate my lack of understanding on the issue.
Swearing at me has no effect on the reality of climate change.
I suggest if you want to understand the science behind it. Do some reading. There is a wealth of information out there.
I am not responsible for your lack of understanding. And I would be here until the end of time explaining away any random unrelated nugget of information that you believe has some impact on the discussion. For example you wanted me to explain why there is oil in the dessert. As if this is somehow disproves that human activity accelerates climate change. It bears no relevance what so ever. "No because thats what you choose to believe nothing more. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No there's not, you claim science knows all the answers, if that were the case they would be able to predict with relative accuracy the future climate. However I suggest you look at all the past predictions, there not even close, good science always has predictability built into it. All we actually know is that c02 is a greenhouse gas that's gone from 280ppm to 410ppm in a couple of hundred years with a maximum recorded temperature increase of 0.7c and a sea level rise of few inches, the extrapolation of that gets trickier and isn't as solid as you'd have us think. We also know that it takes 334j per gram to turn ice into water and that earths ice sheet are not just retreating but many have already disappeared. Clearly as we burn more fossil fuels and release more CO2 into the atmosphere with less ice to soak up the extra heat trapped in the atmosphere average global temperature will rise and the rise will accelerate as the ice sheet are exhausted. But hey, what do I know about how these things work, you clearly have a much deeper understanding of climate science and are comfortable with how things are going. Me, I would like to see action taken to reverse man made global warming and in 50 years time conservatives can complain about us lefties and all the clean air they are forced to breath. Just a thought from a scientific illiterate for you to mull over...Funny how the sea ice was far less between 1972 and 1975 than it is now this data has been gathered weekly since 1970 how do you explain that? I'll field this one. This can easily be explained by you misunderstanding a study published in 2004 by the Journal of geophysical research, on the thickness distribution of Arctic sea ice. And ignoring the fact that sea ice isn't the important measure of mean global temperature increases and also by ignoring longer term trends.Not at all these figures were produced for the 1990 climate change talks.The rise in sea water over the the last 20000 years is around 120 meters man made? No. But as the climate warms this will have an effect on sea levels. Rising sea levels is not the most dangerous aspect to climate change. The point is that human activity is accelerating climate change. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Do you dispute the science behind it?I agree that the climate is changing and what i am saying is that its been changing for hundreds of thousands of years.For instance once the Sahara desert was a forest now you would think the planet must be getting warmer a forest is now a desert but no it was a lot hotter thousands of years ago when it was.It was cooling that stopped the monsoons from bringing the rain to the area and the forest dying.So explain that one to me. Well of course the climate is constantly changing. The point is the all the CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere, along with other greenhouses gasses has greatly accelerated the process. All the information is out there for you to perusal. As with all science. You can choose to believe it or not. Do you believe that water boils at 100 degrees C at sea level? You can choose not to believe it. But your opinion or belief has zero impact on reality. Parts of the right wing media that support the profits of oil companies over everything else, often try to use anecdotal examples of random things, like you've mentioned above, to sow doubt into the minds of people who don't understand the science by presenting them as if they have equal significance to actual peer reviewed independent scientific studies. You're confusing individual examples of non related information with actual evidence. And quite why you're demanding I explain them, is anybody's guess.So anything that does not fit with what you believe is individual data and not actual evidence?The evidence is that there is oil in the desert and i am asking you to explain it as it does not seem to fit with your man made global warming when the temperature was hotter then. You appear to be so confused that it's hard to know where to start with an answer to this. Firstly I did not publish any scientific papers on climate change. I studied them for three years as part of an environmental science degree. As a scientist I don't "believe" anything, science removes the need for belief and faith and replaces them with the scientific method. Feel free to say random unrelated pieces of information like "oil in the desert". All this does is demonstrate your lack of understanding of the issue. As I said you're free to choose not to understand how science works. But your opinions and beliefs on any science based knowledge and understanding, have literally zero impact on reality. Fuck get over yourself mate "im a scientist i dont believe anything" and who said you published anything? So enlighten me with your superior wisdom how my "unrelated pieces of information" demonstrate my lack of understanding on the issue.
Swearing at me has no effect on the reality of climate change.
I suggest if you want to understand the science behind it. Do some reading. There is a wealth of information out there.
I am not responsible for your lack of understanding. And I would be here until the end of time explaining away any random unrelated nugget of information that you believe has some impact on the discussion. For example you wanted me to explain why there is oil in the dessert. As if this is somehow disproves that human activity accelerates climate change. It bears no relevance what so ever. No because thats what you choose to believe nothing more."Belief has nothing to do with it. See above for details. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://youtu.be/cxQjOasRvGE Now they're hiding data.... That's nothing, have a good look where the "98% consensus" comes from.
You claim knowledg but you really don't do much work. You just repeat an empty phrase that suits your opinion.
Bit of a BoJo really
This is one of the studies (one of) that gives the consensus figure:
J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”.
Well it's 1 of 4 sited by the IPCC, you've picked the strongest one and even he's a giant the world is doomed fear mongerer.
Are humans causing the climate to change, well duh .
12,000 papers and only 64 of them showed humans causing serious warming problems.
64% of the papers had no bias either way 34% showed human induced warming of which of that 34%, 97% of climate change scientists are agreed.
Wow, were all doomed in 12 years and definitely need flogging for robbing poor (rich) gettaaa of her childhood.
People who think the world is doomed in 12 years are loons only 1.4% of peer reviewed papers support that egg head conspiracy theory .
Your welcome
You did that calculation? Read all of the papers and analysed their conclusions?
I don't think so
Cut and paste from a denial site. Which one?
You're a fraud.
You're welcome .
It's peer reviewed!.
Excellent.
What is? .
Everything I wrote.
Which is from where? .
Why does it matter?.
Isn't that the whole purpose of peer reviewing "Where are the "facts" that you posted from so that your peers can review them? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The data is really undeniable.Every year more evidence builds the case for ongoing man made climate change.You may argue the severity of consequences with this experiment we are doing with our environment.The science is solid . So why isn't China or India worried? Russia only got interested when it realised it could rinse rubles through carbon credits.. The answer is always money. Its disruptive and expensive to reduce carbon and clean up our act.There really isn’t a downside for the air to be clean in all our cities . You'd think China would be all over it!" They are. Look at their investment rate in renewable energy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No there's not, you claim science knows all the answers, if that were the case they would be able to predict with relative accuracy the future climate. However I suggest you look at all the past predictions, there not even close, good science always has predictability built into it. All we actually know is that c02 is a greenhouse gas that's gone from 280ppm to 410ppm in a couple of hundred years with a maximum recorded temperature increase of 0.7c and a sea level rise of few inches, the extrapolation of that gets trickier and isn't as solid as you'd have us think. We also know that it takes 334j per gram to turn ice into water and that earths ice sheet are not just retreating but many have already disappeared. Clearly as we burn more fossil fuels and release more CO2 into the atmosphere with less ice to soak up the extra heat trapped in the atmosphere average global temperature will rise and the rise will accelerate as the ice sheet are exhausted. But hey, what do I know about how these things work, you clearly have a much deeper understanding of climate science and are comfortable with how things are going. Me, I would like to see action taken to reverse man made global warming and in 50 years time conservatives can complain about us lefties and all the clean air they are forced to breath. Just a thought from a scientific illiterate for you to mull over...Funny how the sea ice was far less between 1972 and 1975 than it is now this data has been gathered weekly since 1970 how do you explain that? I'll field this one. This can easily be explained by you misunderstanding a study published in 2004 by the Journal of geophysical research, on the thickness distribution of Arctic sea ice. And ignoring the fact that sea ice isn't the important measure of mean global temperature increases and also by ignoring longer term trends.Not at all these figures were produced for the 1990 climate change talks.The rise in sea water over the the last 20000 years is around 120 meters man made? No. But as the climate warms this will have an effect on sea levels. Rising sea levels is not the most dangerous aspect to climate change. The point is that human activity is accelerating climate change. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Do you dispute the science behind it?I agree that the climate is changing and what i am saying is that its been changing for hundreds of thousands of years.For instance once the Sahara desert was a forest now you would think the planet must be getting warmer a forest is now a desert but no it was a lot hotter thousands of years ago when it was.It was cooling that stopped the monsoons from bringing the rain to the area and the forest dying.So explain that one to me. Well of course the climate is constantly changing. The point is the all the CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere, along with other greenhouses gasses has greatly accelerated the process. All the information is out there for you to perusal. As with all science. You can choose to believe it or not. Do you believe that water boils at 100 degrees C at sea level? You can choose not to believe it. But your opinion or belief has zero impact on reality. Parts of the right wing media that support the profits of oil companies over everything else, often try to use anecdotal examples of random things, like you've mentioned above, to sow doubt into the minds of people who don't understand the science by presenting them as if they have equal significance to actual peer reviewed independent scientific studies. You're confusing individual examples of non related information with actual evidence. And quite why you're demanding I explain them, is anybody's guess.So anything that does not fit with what you believe is individual data and not actual evidence?The evidence is that there is oil in the desert and i am asking you to explain it as it does not seem to fit with your man made global warming when the temperature was hotter then. You appear to be so confused that it's hard to know where to start with an answer to this. Firstly I did not publish any scientific papers on climate change. I studied them for three years as part of an environmental science degree. As a scientist I don't "believe" anything, science removes the need for belief and faith and replaces them with the scientific method. Feel free to say random unrelated pieces of information like "oil in the desert". All this does is demonstrate your lack of understanding of the issue. As I said you're free to choose not to understand how science works. But your opinions and beliefs on any science based knowledge and understanding, have literally zero impact on reality. Fuck get over yourself mate "im a scientist i dont believe anything" and who said you published anything? So enlighten me with your superior wisdom how my "unrelated pieces of information" demonstrate my lack of understanding on the issue.
Swearing at me has no effect on the reality of climate change.
I suggest if you want to understand the science behind it. Do some reading. There is a wealth of information out there.
I am not responsible for your lack of understanding. And I would be here until the end of time explaining away any random unrelated nugget of information that you believe has some impact on the discussion. For example you wanted me to explain why there is oil in the dessert. As if this is somehow disproves that human activity accelerates climate change. It bears no relevance what so ever. No because thats what you choose to believe nothing more.
Belief has nothing to do with it.
See above for details."you should be a politician not a scientist you are posting a hell of a lot without actually saying anything. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It doesn't matter one bit if humans are adding to global warming or not. What is undeniable is the climate is warming, whether it is due to Sun spots, Earths orbit through space, Volcanic activity or Human actions it doesn't make any difference. For the first time in earth's four billion year history there is a species inhabiting her that can alter that change. Should it not be everyone's responsibility to do everything they can to make our home safer for everyone. If the earth warms and cools due to solar activity, how can we help change that? When the warming phase ends and we head back to a polar ice cap down as far as Watford, how will we as a species alter that? More tax ? More population control? So can i assume clem your prediction is for global cooling over the next decade?? The sun has just entered the solar “minimum “ of its cycle and it would be logical if solar activity is the main driver of climate change we should experience a cooling effect. You might want to google what we know about our star and other similar stars in our galactic neighbourhood and their cycles of activity..It’s all very interesting and should be on your radar if you wish to place the blame on our sun and not on human activity. . Climate isn't a constant c02 is one factor in many many others, that's why the climate models don't predict very well because we really fundamentally don't know everything but yea c02 looks like something we should be concerned about looking to reduce but there's very little evidence to suggest it will cause a catastrophe, in fact there's about as much evidence for it as there is evidence saying it won't make a blind bit of difference, the vast majority of evidence lies in the middle ground of concerning." This is incorrect. Where did you conjure this from? Nice easy article with pictures for you: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No there's not, you claim science knows all the answers, if that were the case they would be able to predict with relative accuracy the future climate. However I suggest you look at all the past predictions, there not even close, good science always has predictability built into it. All we actually know is that c02 is a greenhouse gas that's gone from 280ppm to 410ppm in a couple of hundred years with a maximum recorded temperature increase of 0.7c and a sea level rise of few inches, the extrapolation of that gets trickier and isn't as solid as you'd have us think. We also know that it takes 334j per gram to turn ice into water and that earths ice sheet are not just retreating but many have already disappeared. Clearly as we burn more fossil fuels and release more CO2 into the atmosphere with less ice to soak up the extra heat trapped in the atmosphere average global temperature will rise and the rise will accelerate as the ice sheet are exhausted. But hey, what do I know about how these things work, you clearly have a much deeper understanding of climate science and are comfortable with how things are going. Me, I would like to see action taken to reverse man made global warming and in 50 years time conservatives can complain about us lefties and all the clean air they are forced to breath. Just a thought from a scientific illiterate for you to mull over...Funny how the sea ice was far less between 1972 and 1975 than it is now this data has been gathered weekly since 1970 how do you explain that? I'll field this one. This can easily be explained by you misunderstanding a study published in 2004 by the Journal of geophysical research, on the thickness distribution of Arctic sea ice. And ignoring the fact that sea ice isn't the important measure of mean global temperature increases and also by ignoring longer term trends.Not at all these figures were produced for the 1990 climate change talks.The rise in sea water over the the last 20000 years is around 120 meters man made? No. But as the climate warms this will have an effect on sea levels. Rising sea levels is not the most dangerous aspect to climate change. The point is that human activity is accelerating climate change. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Do you dispute the science behind it?I agree that the climate is changing and what i am saying is that its been changing for hundreds of thousands of years.For instance once the Sahara desert was a forest now you would think the planet must be getting warmer a forest is now a desert but no it was a lot hotter thousands of years ago when it was.It was cooling that stopped the monsoons from bringing the rain to the area and the forest dying.So explain that one to me." The change is now faster than it ever has been in hundreds of thousands of years. There is huge chemical activity now, created by us, that has never happened in hundreds of thousands of years. Why would you think that changing the inputs would lead to the the same cycle repeating itself? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No there's not, you claim science knows all the answers, if that were the case they would be able to predict with relative accuracy the future climate. However I suggest you look at all the past predictions, there not even close, good science always has predictability built into it. All we actually know is that c02 is a greenhouse gas that's gone from 280ppm to 410ppm in a couple of hundred years with a maximum recorded temperature increase of 0.7c and a sea level rise of few inches, the extrapolation of that gets trickier and isn't as solid as you'd have us think. We also know that it takes 334j per gram to turn ice into water and that earths ice sheet are not just retreating but many have already disappeared. Clearly as we burn more fossil fuels and release more CO2 into the atmosphere with less ice to soak up the extra heat trapped in the atmosphere average global temperature will rise and the rise will accelerate as the ice sheet are exhausted. But hey, what do I know about how these things work, you clearly have a much deeper understanding of climate science and are comfortable with how things are going. Me, I would like to see action taken to reverse man made global warming and in 50 years time conservatives can complain about us lefties and all the clean air they are forced to breath. Just a thought from a scientific illiterate for you to mull over...Funny how the sea ice was far less between 1972 and 1975 than it is now this data has been gathered weekly since 1970 how do you explain that? I'll field this one. This can easily be explained by you misunderstanding a study published in 2004 by the Journal of geophysical research, on the thickness distribution of Arctic sea ice. And ignoring the fact that sea ice isn't the important measure of mean global temperature increases and also by ignoring longer term trends.Not at all these figures were produced for the 1990 climate change talks.The rise in sea water over the the last 20000 years is around 120 meters man made? No. But as the climate warms this will have an effect on sea levels. Rising sea levels is not the most dangerous aspect to climate change. The point is that human activity is accelerating climate change. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Do you dispute the science behind it?I agree that the climate is changing and what i am saying is that its been changing for hundreds of thousands of years.For instance once the Sahara desert was a forest now you would think the planet must be getting warmer a forest is now a desert but no it was a lot hotter thousands of years ago when it was.It was cooling that stopped the monsoons from bringing the rain to the area and the forest dying.So explain that one to me. The change is now faster than it ever has been in hundreds of thousands of years. There is huge chemical activity now, created by us, that has never happened in hundreds of thousands of years. Why would you think that changing the inputs would lead to the the same cycle repeating itself?" Not true sea levels rose dramatically between 14000 years ago and 8000 years ago since then in comparison very little. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No there's not, you claim science knows all the answers, if that were the case they would be able to predict with relative accuracy the future climate. However I suggest you look at all the past predictions, there not even close, good science always has predictability built into it. All we actually know is that c02 is a greenhouse gas that's gone from 280ppm to 410ppm in a couple of hundred years with a maximum recorded temperature increase of 0.7c and a sea level rise of few inches, the extrapolation of that gets trickier and isn't as solid as you'd have us think. We also know that it takes 334j per gram to turn ice into water and that earths ice sheet are not just retreating but many have already disappeared. Clearly as we burn more fossil fuels and release more CO2 into the atmosphere with less ice to soak up the extra heat trapped in the atmosphere average global temperature will rise and the rise will accelerate as the ice sheet are exhausted. But hey, what do I know about how these things work, you clearly have a much deeper understanding of climate science and are comfortable with how things are going. Me, I would like to see action taken to reverse man made global warming and in 50 years time conservatives can complain about us lefties and all the clean air they are forced to breath. Just a thought from a scientific illiterate for you to mull over...Funny how the sea ice was far less between 1972 and 1975 than it is now this data has been gathered weekly since 1970 how do you explain that? I'll field this one. This can easily be explained by you misunderstanding a study published in 2004 by the Journal of geophysical research, on the thickness distribution of Arctic sea ice. And ignoring the fact that sea ice isn't the important measure of mean global temperature increases and also by ignoring longer term trends.Not at all these figures were produced for the 1990 climate change talks.The rise in sea water over the the last 20000 years is around 120 meters man made? No. But as the climate warms this will have an effect on sea levels. Rising sea levels is not the most dangerous aspect to climate change. The point is that human activity is accelerating climate change. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Do you dispute the science behind it?I agree that the climate is changing and what i am saying is that its been changing for hundreds of thousands of years.For instance once the Sahara desert was a forest now you would think the planet must be getting warmer a forest is now a desert but no it was a lot hotter thousands of years ago when it was.It was cooling that stopped the monsoons from bringing the rain to the area and the forest dying.So explain that one to me. The change is now faster than it ever has been in hundreds of thousands of years. There is huge chemical activity now, created by us, that has never happened in hundreds of thousands of years. Why would you think that changing the inputs would lead to the the same cycle repeating itself?Not true sea levels rose dramatically between 14000 years ago and 8000 years ago since then in comparison very little. " That's a 6000 year time period you're talking about. And you're trying to compare it to a 200 year time period. And I think you're confusing sea level rising with climate change. Two different, yet related, issues. Honestly, accelerated climate change due to human activity is happening. Don't take our word for it. Go and read up. There is no debate here. You not understanding what's going on, in no way implies a lack of scientific knowledge on the situation. It only implies that you don't know what's going on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No there's not, you claim science knows all the answers, if that were the case they would be able to predict with relative accuracy the future climate. However I suggest you look at all the past predictions, there not even close, good science always has predictability built into it. All we actually know is that c02 is a greenhouse gas that's gone from 280ppm to 410ppm in a couple of hundred years with a maximum recorded temperature increase of 0.7c and a sea level rise of few inches, the extrapolation of that gets trickier and isn't as solid as you'd have us think. We also know that it takes 334j per gram to turn ice into water and that earths ice sheet are not just retreating but many have already disappeared. Clearly as we burn more fossil fuels and release more CO2 into the atmosphere with less ice to soak up the extra heat trapped in the atmosphere average global temperature will rise and the rise will accelerate as the ice sheet are exhausted. But hey, what do I know about how these things work, you clearly have a much deeper understanding of climate science and are comfortable with how things are going. Me, I would like to see action taken to reverse man made global warming and in 50 years time conservatives can complain about us lefties and all the clean air they are forced to breath. Just a thought from a scientific illiterate for you to mull over...Funny how the sea ice was far less between 1972 and 1975 than it is now this data has been gathered weekly since 1970 how do you explain that? I'll field this one. This can easily be explained by you misunderstanding a study published in 2004 by the Journal of geophysical research, on the thickness distribution of Arctic sea ice. And ignoring the fact that sea ice isn't the important measure of mean global temperature increases and also by ignoring longer term trends.Not at all these figures were produced for the 1990 climate change talks.The rise in sea water over the the last 20000 years is around 120 meters man made? No. But as the climate warms this will have an effect on sea levels. Rising sea levels is not the most dangerous aspect to climate change. The point is that human activity is accelerating climate change. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Do you dispute the science behind it?I agree that the climate is changing and what i am saying is that its been changing for hundreds of thousands of years.For instance once the Sahara desert was a forest now you would think the planet must be getting warmer a forest is now a desert but no it was a lot hotter thousands of years ago when it was.It was cooling that stopped the monsoons from bringing the rain to the area and the forest dying.So explain that one to me. The change is now faster than it ever has been in hundreds of thousands of years. There is huge chemical activity now, created by us, that has never happened in hundreds of thousands of years. Why would you think that changing the inputs would lead to the the same cycle repeating itself?Not true sea levels rose dramatically between 14000 years ago and 8000 years ago since then in comparison very little. " You don't understand the meaning of the word "faster"? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think we really don’t need to be concerned with climate change deniers. Flat earthers are cut from the same cloth.Its all a conspiracy guff and nonsense. Governments and industries are making the change required.For some the change is too slow for others it’s too fast .The important thing is that the direction of travel has been decided and there is nothing those that deny the science can do apart from moan and grind their teeth . They’ll either get on board or be left behind. They are irrelevant to the conversation ." I dont see any climate change deniers on here only people who are skeptical about how its caused. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://youtu.be/cxQjOasRvGE Now they're hiding data.... That's nothing, have a good look where the "98% consensus" comes from.
You claim knowledg but you really don't do much work. You just repeat an empty phrase that suits your opinion.
Bit of a BoJo really
This is one of the studies (one of) that gives the consensus figure:
J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”.
Well it's 1 of 4 sited by the IPCC, you've picked the strongest one and even he's a giant the world is doomed fear mongerer.
Are humans causing the climate to change, well duh .
12,000 papers and only 64 of them showed humans causing serious warming problems.
64% of the papers had no bias either way 34% showed human induced warming of which of that 34%, 97% of climate change scientists are agreed.
Wow, were all doomed in 12 years and definitely need flogging for robbing poor (rich) gettaaa of her childhood.
People who think the world is doomed in 12 years are loons only 1.4% of peer reviewed papers support that egg head conspiracy theory .
Your welcome
You did that calculation? Read all of the papers and analysed their conclusions?
I don't think so
Cut and paste from a denial site. Which one?
You're a fraud.
You're welcome .
It's peer reviewed!.
Excellent.
What is? .
Everything I wrote.
Which is from where? .
Why does it matter?.
Isn't that the whole purpose of peer reviewing
Where are the "facts" that you posted from so that your peers can review them?". Here's an idea, go look at the 32,000 papers John cook reviewed and see how many of them indicate climate catastrophe!. Go on run along, cycle, swim, ride a donkey whatever | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
