Global warming

[The Internet]

16 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

Does anyone actually deny climate change?  The climate changes every second of every day in every inch of the planet.  Many people like me just do not attribute it to mankind.  There are huge environmental dangers in the world and we can all do our bit but this madness about Global Apocalypse and imminent Armageddon are simply not based on anything more than fantasy

 

Also, can someone tell me the relevance of the protesters waving LGBTQetcetc flags as part of their 'protests'?  Why must every ****ing left wing so call cause end up being an LGBT issue.  It is almost now as if it is being hijacked.  Do these people not realise that they are doing more to harm their 'cause' than strengthen it?

 

The president of the united states. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

51 minutes ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

I wouldn't be surprised if this middle class protest goes the same way as the Occupy process did. Especially now the workers are fighting back.

 

IMO XR made a catastrophic error when they decided to overly inconvience the public by staging protests lasting weeks rather than a day here or there, because joe public can & will tolarate being disrupted for a day or so, but two weeks at a time, nah that's asking too much and that is why we are now seeing the public losing it's patience with the protestors and fighting back.

 

The other thing which I think XR made a huge mistake over, was that they are inconviencing and trying to ram their message down the throats of people who are already trying to do their bit, such as recycling plactics, paper, metal etc, choosing green energy companies and that sort of thing, most people in the UK are already aware that the planet's climate is changing and are doing what they can in their own small way, they don't need some self-righteous protester ramming their beliefs down their throats, little wonder the public's attitude is beginning to change against XR.

 

[Justin Z]

Can't even be arsed to learn the difference between climate and weather and spouting off about the non-existence of climate change deniers.

[The Internet]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/world/climate-environment/climate-change-qatar-air-conditioning-outdoors/

 

There's really nothing we can do to offset this kind of shit is there? Building a metropolis in the desert then realising it might be too hot for everyday city life. Answer - put air con EVERYWHERE

 

 

 

[JimKongUno]

2 minutes ago, Mauricio Pinilla said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/world/climate-environment/climate-change-qatar-air-conditioning-outdoors/

 

There's really nothing we can do to offset this kind of shit is there? Building a metropolis in the desert then realising it might be too hot for everyday city life. Answer - put air con EVERYWHERE

 

 

 

 

They could be onto something . Put aircon all over the world and giant freezers at the poles . Extinction prevented . Thank you Qatar

[The Internet]

1 minute ago, JimKongUno said:

 

They could be onto something . Put aircon all over the world and giant freezers at the poles . Extinction prevented . Thank you Qatar

 

Reckon they're not thinking big enough. They should just build a huge fan in space and have it constantly blowing towards earth. They'll get there eventually. 

[shaun.lawson]

2 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

We do need to reproduce less as a species.

 

2 hours ago, Lovecraft said:

Pretty much goes against every religion, so no chance of it happening.

 

Sadly, I think it's too late to save the planet as it is, but only for a while.  The planet will recover once the humans are gone.

 

 

 

 

Not disagreeing with Pans' post at all - but I do find myself wondering how many people who say stuff like this themselves haven't reproduced and/or have no intention of doing so.

 

Or is it OK if white Europeans do it, but not black Africans?

[shaun.lawson]

1 hour ago, i8hibsh said:

can someone tell me the relevance of the protesters waving LGBTQ etcetc flags as part of their 'protests'?  

 

Probably in order to wind up gammon like you. With regard to which: mission accomplished!

[shaun.lawson]

49 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

IMO XR made a catastrophic error when they decided to overly inconvience the public by staging protests lasting weeks rather than a day here or there, because joe public can & will tolarate being disrupted for a day or so, but two weeks at a time, nah that's asking too much and that is why we are now seeing the public losing it's patience with the protestors and fighting back.

 

The other thing which I think XR made a huge mistake over, was that they are inconviencing and trying to ram their message down the throats of people who are already trying to do their bit, such as recycling plactics, paper, metal etc, choosing green energy companies and that sort of thing, most people in the UK are already aware that the planet's climate is changing and are doing what they can in their own small way, they don't need some self-righteous protester ramming their beliefs down their throats, little wonder the public's attitude is beginning to change against XR.

 

 

Direct action doesn't work unless a massive majority of the public are behind it. I agree with all the criticisms of XR's strategy completely.

 

When I started at Oxford, I was looking for societies to join. Curious about One World, I enrolled; they seemed nice, after all. Our first meeting was in a pub, where they were planning to loudly gatecrash a meeting of rich bigwigs and make an absolute racket. 

 

Now, call me pathetic (don't worry, I know I am already), but I immediately challenged them. "What do you think you're going to achieve by denying these people the right to meet and discuss whatever they have to discuss?" I found the whole thing ghastly, and walked out. Sure I believe in the right to protest (unlike, in practice, many of our beloved police forces or the government); but contrary to my behaviour at times on here, I don't believe in ramming things down the faces of ordinary people. Not in the outside world, at least. It achieves nothing, is completely counter-productive and more than that, is just plain rude.

[shaun.lawson]

28 minutes ago, JimKongUno said:

 

They could be onto something . Put aircon all over the world and giant freezers at the poles . Extinction prevented . Thank you Qatar

 

Apropos of nothing, air con here always leaks. It leaks in no time. Water seeps out from the main unit and there's no use putting towels down on the balcony, because they're completely saturated within 2-4 hours.

 

Is this normal? Or just a particular Uruguay problem?

[I P Knightley]

3 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

Extinction Rebellion have just pissed off everybody.

 

If your deny climate change is happening then IMO, you're either a moron or your financially linked to the Oil/Gas/Coal/Fracking/Plastics system.

 

We do need to use less single use plastics.

We do need to need to eat less meat and fish.

We do need to convert to renewable's.

We do need to use the car less and invest in public transport and electric vehicles.

We do need to reduce our air travel.

We need to stop selling lamb to New Zealand and then buying lamb from New Zealand as an example of crazy.

We do need to start building sustainable homes that need less heating.

We do need to plant far more trees and help poorer countries to not chop down forests for stupid crops that we dont need.

We do need to utilise our railways, canals and seas to transport large bulky products instead of gas guzzling trucks (we live on an island).

We do need to divest from fossil fuels and into green technology to create jobs and new products.

We do need to move away from coal power stations globally.

We do need to reproduce less as a species.

 

And a good few others but my point is, theres nothing in the list above that humanity cannot do now if the will and the political push is there.

As soon as investors make money from it and consumers can save money doing it we will be sorted.

Climbing on trains and stopping folk going about their business wont change shit!

I like this post and I do my best wherever I can. 

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

1 hour ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

IMO XR made a catastrophic error when they decided to overly inconvience the public by staging protests lasting weeks rather than a day here or there, because joe public can & will tolarate being disrupted for a day or so, but two weeks at a time, nah that's asking too much and that is why we are now seeing the public losing it's patience with the protestors and fighting back.

 

The other thing which I think XR made a huge mistake over, was that they are inconviencing and trying to ram their message down the throats of people who are already trying to do their bit, such as recycling plactics, paper, metal etc, choosing green energy companies and that sort of thing, most people in the UK are already aware that the planet's climate is changing and are doing what they can in their own small way, they don't need some self-righteous protester ramming their beliefs down their throats, little wonder the public's attitude is beginning to change against XR.

 

Completely agree. They need to get the public onside, bullying and inconveniencing them won't work. Also, I don't see how me putting my tattie peelings in a plastic bin will change anything?

The only person doing anything worthwhile is that wee Swedish lassie.

 

[Pans Jambo]

1 hour ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

 

Not disagreeing with Pans' post at all - but I do find myself wondering how many people who say stuff like this themselves haven't reproduced and/or have no intention of doing so.

 

Or is it OK if white Europeans do it, but not black Africans?

Aye can of worms that one Shaun (I have 2 kids myself).

 

As Lovecraft says, its ingrained in some religions (Just look at Catholicism as an example but most of them will encourage couples to go out and breed and teach your children the same..."in the name of (whatever) god".

 

And to be fair to black Africans, its any country in the world except the "rich ones" it seems.

 

If we look back our family tree just 100 years or so ago we will see huge amounts of siblings in our forefathers families. Seems the less you have the more you breed (I suppose 100 years or more ago most married women had 5 or 6 kids knowing 2 or 3 of them wouldnt make it due to some god only knows what disease back then).

 

Education is the way forward I suppose.

[Bindy Badgy]

1 hour ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

 

Not disagreeing with Pans' post at all - but I do find myself wondering how many people who say stuff like this themselves haven't reproduced and/or have no intention of doing so.

 

Or is it OK if white Europeans do it, but not black Africans?

 

I practice what I preach here. I ****ing hate children so it isn't particularly difficult for me.

[gjcc]

2 hours ago, Mauricio Pinilla said:

 

Reckon they're not thinking big enough. They should just build a huge fan in space and have it constantly blowing towards earth. They'll get there eventually. 

No point cooling the earth, that might blow us out of orbit. Plus Donald Trump wouldn’t allow it.
https://news.sky.com/video/trump-windmills-cause-cancer-11683235

What we really need is to cool the sun. 

[The Internet]

On 25/09/2019 at 17:02, Mauricio Pinilla said:

All we need to do is take all cars off the road, ground all planes, stop all meat production and deforestation. If we do all that worldwide yesterday we might have made a half decent start. 

 

So unfortunately it's taken a horrific pandemic to test this but are we seeing small signs of proof that it can be done? Air pollution, which is supposedly the cause of over 4million deaths every year, co2 and no2 levels have dropped dramatically across the world, purely because humans have stopped driving as much for a few weeks. Even with air travel (though not as much) and everything else still going on, and arguably more energy being used daily in many households. 

 

Obviously I'm not trying to make light of the human tragedy of this pandemic or anything, just an interesting side effect. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

6 minutes ago, Mauricio Pinilla said:

 

So unfortunately it's taken a horrific pandemic to test this but are we seeing small signs of proof that it can be done? Air pollution, which is supposedly the cause of over 4million deaths every year, co2 and no2 levels have dropped dramatically across the world, purely because humans have stopped driving as much for a few weeks. Even with air travel (though not as much) and everything else still going on, and arguably more energy being used daily in many households. 

 

Obviously I'm not trying to make light of the human tragedy of this pandemic or anything, just an interesting side effect. 

 

It'll certainly give campaigners more than enough data/evidence to show the level of damage cars/planes etc etc are doing, because they now have a before and after argument to back-up their claims now.

[Dawnrazor]

They might take the pressure off farmers now, agriculture is running pretty much the same as before the pandemic.

[Bigsmak]

On 18/10/2019 at 13:16, i8hibsh said:

Does anyone actually deny climate change?  The climate changes every second of every day in every inch of the planet. Many people like me just do not attribute it to mankind.  There are huge environmental dangers in the world and we can all do our bit but this madness about Global Apocalypse and imminent Armageddon are simply not based on anything more than fantasy

 

 

Just found this thread.  No it doesn't, the climate and weather are very different things. And its massively important to know the difference if you want to have a 'Stance' on climate change.  

 

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

 

 

[Justin Z]

On 18/10/2019 at 05:16, i8hibsh said:

Does anyone actually deny climate change?  The climate changes every second of every day in every inch of the planet.  Many people like me just do not attribute it to mankind.  There are huge environmental dangers in the world and we can all do our bit but this madness about Global Apocalypse and imminent Armageddon are simply not based on anything more than fantasy

 

[i8hibsh]

3 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

 

 

Coming from a guy who believes in sky fairies I take that as a compliment.

[JFK-1]

On 18/04/2020 at 04:54, Bigsmak said:

 

Just found this thread.  No it doesn't, the climate and weather are very different things. And its massively important to know the difference if you want to have a 'Stance' on climate change.  

 

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

 

 

 

You just have to laugh when people with zero expertise in this field dispute the scientific consensus with 'in my opinion' etc. Their opinion is below worthless. The only opinion of any worth is that of the experts in the field and they currently don't have an opinion, they have better than opinion.

They have a consensus derived from study and data and that consensus says climate change is happening and humans are indisputably the driving force. That's pretty much end of story regardless of the opinion of any internet non entity.
 

 

[Justin Z]

20 hours ago, i8hibsh said:

Coming from a guy who believes in sky fairies I take that as a compliment.

 

I'm afraid your lager soaked brain has failed you again mate. I've been an atheist for nearly half my life.

[H2]

Nobody can deny climate change, it's a natural phenomena.

The amount that humans have effected it is up for a lot of debate, and it's interesting to see how many "experts" there are on the subject, there are even more experts on climate change than there is on football.

 

Most of  them don't know simple things the specific heat capacity of air or water, nor do they know have any idea how much oxygen a tree emits, or how much carbon a cow or a car emits, but they are experts!  

What would be interesting to know though is for all the people who believe man is the problem, apart from protesting, whinging, blaming others, what are you actually doing about it?

I'm definitely not an expert, but What I do? 

Re-use, recycle. That's about it.

Still use electric appliances and drive a car, eat meat and drink beer. So I'm a bad person, are you?

 

[JFK-1]

5 minutes ago, H2 said:

Nobody can deny climate change, it's a natural phenomena.

The amount that humans have effected it is up for a lot of debate,

 

No it isn't, the debate is over the consensus agreed. The only debate is what to do about it.

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, H2 said:

Nobody can deny climate change, it's a natural phenomena.

*The amount that humans have effected it is up for a lot of debate, and it's interesting to see how many "experts" there are on the subject, there are even more experts on climate change than there is on football.

 

Most of  them don't know simple things the specific heat capacity of air or water, nor do they know have any idea how much oxygen a tree emits, or how much carbon a cow or a car emits, but they are experts!  

What would be interesting to know though is for all the people who believe man is the problem, apart from protesting, whinging, blaming others, what are you actually doing about it?

I'm definitely not an expert, but What I do? 

Re-use, recycle. That's about it.

Still use electric appliances and drive a car, eat meat and drink beer. So I'm a bad person, are you?

 

*Bollox 

2 months of human lockdown and there's already improvement. 

[H2]

17 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

*Bollox 

2 months of human lockdown and there's already improvement. 

 

Really, what is the improvement to climate change?

Is it that because there is less pollution the intensity of the sun has increased on the earths surface so the polar cap is melting quicker?

I'm assuming you are one of the many experts?

[H2]

1 hour ago, JFK-1 said:

 

No it isn't, the debate is over the consensus agreed. The only debate is what to do about it.

Is it, who agreed it? Are you one of the experts who agreed it, or could you tell us who they are?

Maybe you could tell us how much effect humans have had, and most interestingly what are you doing about it?

 

[i8hibsh]

2 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

I'm afraid your lager soaked brain has failed you again mate. I've been an atheist for nearly half my life.

 

Ah forgive me please, I got that wrong. Is there not an American on here who is 'god fearing?'.

[queensferryjambo]

On 18/04/2020 at 10:33, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

It'll certainly give campaigners more than enough data/evidence to show the level of damage cars/planes etc etc are doing, because they now have a before and after argument to back-up their claims now.

 

 

The data will be skewed with everyone now on the internet 24/7 for online communication during lockdown. All the worlds data centres will be ramped up to the max and using up more energy and polluting more than everything else combined by now  

 

Just a wee fact one of the most unseen and hardly ever scrutinised causes of Global Warming is Data Centres. They use three percent of the global electricity supply and accounting for about two percent of total greenhouse gas emissions. So that must have at least doubled.

 

You might find it hard to believe but Data centres have the same carbon footprint as the aviation industry.

 

On a more jovial note - I absolutely hate it when 'the kids' go out on protests against climate change blaming the older generation. They have their phones on filming everything at the protests then post them online, then go home to their XBoxes and watch Netflix and have the cheek to point the finger of blame at older people. What do they think powers all the servers that process all that data?. So turn off your phones you spotty faced preaching teenager hypocrites  

 

Yes I am old and grumpy   

 

 

[JFK-1]

1 hour ago, H2 said:

Is it, who agreed it? Are you one of the experts who agreed it, or could you tell us who they are?

Maybe you could tell us how much effect humans have had, and most interestingly what are you doing about it?

 

 

Are you serious or just trying to be a tit? You want me to name all of the 97% of climate scientists who agree this consensus? Well that's not going to happen.

And sit here and describe to you the effects humans are having? Again are you just trying to be a tit?

Go research it. You have the most expansive depository of information in history at your fingertips and you still need others to educate you? Get a grip FFS. 

[I P Knightley]

 

4 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

I'm afraid your lager soaked brain has failed you again mate. I've been an atheist for nearly half my life.

Which half?  

[H2]

ah, I suggest have a look at the  research the 97% and where it came from, it's really quite interesting. Obviously it's not 97% of the real experts. (From memory it was from about 3,500, of which was whittled down to a few hundred of people who claimed to be experts, (which could have people like you and me) and they got the 97% figure they wanted.

I have done a fair bit of research, and i find that most of the things that people pontificate is just a repeat of propaganda, and not actually based on very much other than what they have seen on the media. 

 

But I would really be interested to know what you are and others actually dong to save the planet, other than talking about it and calling people names. 

 

Talking about it is easy.

[Greedy Jambo]

How many of you are still ramming the heating on in april though?

 

[JFK-1]

10 minutes ago, H2 said:

ah, I suggest have a look at the  research the 97% and where it came from, it's really quite interesting. Obviously it's not 97% of the real experts. (From memory it was from about 3,500, of which was whittled down to a few hundred of people who claimed to be experts, (which could have people like you and me) and they got the 97% figure they wanted.

I have done a fair bit of research, and i find that most of the things that people pontificate is just a repeat of propaganda, and not actually based on very much other than what they have seen on the media. 

 

What a load of utter shite. Where did you research? Give us an example of he source of this utter shite? Some conspiracy tit with a blog?

I will give you an example of where that 97% comes from and I will make a prediction. Call it a scientific prediction drawn from data, You will provide absolutely nothing with any credibility.

The following are scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action

[Thunderstruck]

1 hour ago, H2 said:

ah, I suggest have a look at the  research the 97% and where it came from, it's really quite interesting. Obviously it's not 97% of the real experts. (From memory it was from about 3,500, of which was whittled down to a few hundred of people who claimed to be experts, (which could have people like you and me) and they got the 97% figure they wanted.

I have done a fair bit of research, and i find that most of the things that people pontificate is just a repeat of propaganda, and not actually based on very much other than what they have seen on the media. 

 

But I would really be interested to know what you are and others actually dong to save the planet, other than talking about it and calling people names. 

 

Talking about it is easy.

You are correct.
 

You could say that 100% of scientists believe that there is climate change. They are 100% right, the existence of climate change cannot be disputed; it is an entirely natural phenomenon that has been around since the Earth got an atmosphere. The fact that Edinburgh is no longer under hundreds of feet of ice is clear evidence of natural climate change.  
 

You could say that 97% of scientists say than man is responsible for all climate change. They would, for the reasons above, be 100% wrong. 

 

If you were to say that there is a range of opinion among CLIMATE Scientists as to the impact of human activity in climate, you would be 100% correct. The range is from no opinion to zero effect to effecting most of change. 
 

11,994 Scientific Papers were considered by Cook in his sampling. Of these:
7,930 (66.4%) expressed no opinion on human effect. 
3,896 (32.6%) were of opinion there was “some” human effect. 
105 (0.8%) said man caused “most”. 
0 (0%) claimed any sort of catastrophic global warming. 
 

The “97% of Scientists” is a political construct as is the addition of “dangerous” and “catastrophe”. It is explained in the linked articles. 
 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#11b5dd973f9f

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph-bast-and-roy-spencer-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-1401145980

 

[Justin Z]

2 hours ago, I P Knightley said:

 

Which half?  

 

The most recent half.

[JFK-1]

3 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

You are correct.
 

You could say that 100% of scientists believe that there is climate change. They are 100% right, the existence of climate change cannot be disputed; it is an entirely natural phenomenon that has been around since the Earth got an atmosphere. The fact that Edinburgh is no longer under hundreds of feet of ice is clear evidence of natural climate change.  
 

You could say that 97% of scientists say than man is responsible for all climate change. They would, for the reasons above, be 100% wrong. 

 

If you were to say that there is a range of opinion among CLIMATE Scientists as to the impact of human activity in climate, you would be 100% correct. The range is from no opinion to zero effect to effecting most of change. 
 

11,994 Scientific Papers were considered by Cook in his sampling. Of these:
7,930 (66.4%) expressed no opinion on human effect. 
3,896 (32.6%) were of opinion there was “some” human effect. 
105 (0.8%) said man caused “most”. 
0 (0%) claimed any sort of catastrophic global warming. 
 

The “97% of Scientists” is a political construct as is the addition of “dangerous” and “catastrophe”. It is explained in the linked articles. 
 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#11b5dd973f9f

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph-bast-and-roy-spencer-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-1401145980

 

 

More absolute utter shite. Tell me, what's your expertise or the expertise of this Alex Epstein that you imagine qualifies you or he to babble this utter shite? Well his expertise is that he's a non scientist writer which actually means no expertise at all.

And yours is listening to a non scientist writer babble utter shite on climate change writing on a right wing platform. And not a science based link to link to. A right wing blogger and Forbes is your best shot. LOL

And if you had researched that utter shite beyond the utter shite you would quickly have realised that you were posting a 5 year old link containing utter shite that's been widely debunked as utter shite.

 

Quote

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them.
 

Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

 

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

 

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.

 

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

 

[ri Alban]

5 hours ago, Thunderstruck said:

You are correct.
 

You could say that 100% of scientists believe that there is climate change. They are 100% right, the existence of climate change cannot be disputed; it is an entirely natural phenomenon that has been around since the Earth got an atmosphere. The fact that Edinburgh is no longer under hundreds of feet of ice is clear evidence of natural climate change.  
 

You could say that 97% of scientists say than man is responsible for all climate change. They would, for the reasons above, be 100% wrong. 

 

If you were to say that there is a range of opinion among CLIMATE Scientists as to the impact of human activity in climate, you would be 100% correct. The range is from no opinion to zero effect to effecting most of change. 
 

11,994 Scientific Papers were considered by Cook in his sampling. Of these:
7,930 (66.4%) expressed no opinion on human effect. 
3,896 (32.6%) were of opinion there was “some” human effect. 
105 (0.8%) said man caused “most”. 
0 (0%) claimed any sort of catastrophic global warming. 
 

The “97% of Scientists” is a political construct as is the addition of “dangerous” and “catastrophe”. It is explained in the linked articles. 
 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#11b5dd973f9f

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph-bast-and-roy-spencer-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-1401145980

 

 

[ri Alban]

9 hours ago, i8hibsh said:

 

Ah forgive me please, I got that wrong. Is there not an American on here who is 'god fearing?'.

Aye. 

 

9 hours ago, H2 said:

 

Really, what is the improvement to climate change?

Is it that because there is less pollution the intensity of the sun has increased on the earths surface so the polar cap is melting quicker?

I'm assuming you are one of the many experts?

Are you an expert?

[ri Alban]

10 hours ago, H2 said:

 

Really, what is the improvement to climate change?

Is it that because there is less pollution the intensity of the sun has increased on the earths surface so the polar cap is melting quicker?

I'm assuming you are one of the many experts?

I could prove, without doubt, that Humans have accelerated climate change. With the pollution, clearing of forests, like the Amazon for livestock (The number one cause) and the dumping of our waste into the waters of the world and you'd still protest. But that's ok, every single person has that right to be wrong, I'm quite partial to it myself at times. 

 

Oh! Improvement, we'll just have a wee listen to the world around you, the others who share this world are having a ball with us out the road for a wee bit.

Anyway! I'm not saying we need to stop, immediately, but come on, I wouldn't throw my rubbish into your back garden, or piss into your kettle. Let's not do it to the rest of our neighborhood of this planet.

 

It's not up for debate anymore about how the climate has become like this, bud. 👍 

 

I'm not looking for a fight either, don't read this as hostile, just an opinion of a fellow Hearts Man. 👍

Edited April 20, 2020 by ri Alban

[The Brow]

I always file climate change deniers alongside flat earthers, anti vaxxers and people who believe Australia doesnt exist. 

 

Seems there is a large following for the sort of right-wing-edge-lord conspiracy theorists around. A very strange breed and the reason folk like Dave Cullen/Sargon of Akkad/London Real TV/Alex Jones are popular (despite their insistence to the contrary). Normally working class & patriotic yet vote Tory, like the weed, live in council houses or with their mums, yet claim to be worldly knowledgeable. 

 

Its a no from me. 

[Thunderstruck]

9 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

 

More absolute utter shite. Tell me, what's your expertise or the expertise of this Alex Epstein that you imagine qualifies you or he to babble this utter shite? Well his expertise is that he's a non scientist writer which actually means no expertise at all.

And yours is listening to a non scientist writer babble utter shite on climate change writing on a right wing platform. And not a science based link to link to. A right wing blogger and Forbes is your best shot. LOL

And if you had researched that utter shite beyond the utter shite you would quickly have realised that you were posting a 5 year old link containing utter shite that's been widely debunked as utter shite.

 

 

Reacting with curiosity to a diverse or dissenting opinion is an act of creation. For you, and for them. (David L Marquet)

 

I see that you cut and pasted a link which includes a mention of Naomi Oreskes, a science historian. Her research was based 928 abstracts she filtered out the ISI database using the keywords "global climate change". That analysis, using a filtered search, should, at least, spark a little curiosity about what the other 10,000 (at that time) papers found. 
 

Remember the old advertising tactic - “90% of consumers who expressed a preference chose [product name]“. Does that mean 90% of all consumers questioned chose that product?

 

Sticking with the curiosity theme, I would be interested to see some of your examples of how climate has - unequivocally - been changed by the small man-made addition to an already trace atmospheric gas (CO2). 
 

If you are willing to engage constructively, I will respond. Otherwise, keep your bile to yourself. 
 

 

[Bindy Badgy]

Epstein's education and work history:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Epstein_(American_writer)#Early_life_and_education

 

Quote

At Duke University, where for two years he was the editor and publisher of The Duke Review, Epstein in his own words 'studied a combination of philosophy and computer science' graduating with a BA.

Quote

 

Epstein was a writer and fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, a non-profit organization in Irvine, California that promotes Ayn Rand's novels and her philosophy of Objectivism, between 2004 and 2011.

 

In 2011, Epstein founded the Center for Industrial Progress (CIP), an advocacy group that describes its mission as "to bring about a new industrial revolution."

 

Epstein and CIP challenge the belief that the consumption of fossil fuels harms human life, arguing that recent gains in public health and safety were achieved not in spite of mankind's reliance on carbon energy but, in large measure, because of it.

 

In 2012, Epstein debated American environmentalist Bill McKibben while representing CIP at an event held at Duke University.

 

In 2013, Rolling Stone placed Epstein and the Center for Industrial Progress on their list of top Global Warming Deniers. Epstein wrote a rebuttal to the piece in Forbes. In his rebuttal, Epstein also criticizes the term global warming denier, which he claims is a smear tactic intended to liken critics of environmentalism to Holocaust deniers.

In 2014, Epstein and CIP publicly supported the Keystone Pipeline.

 

In 2015, The Guardian published an opinion piece by Jason Wilson critical of Epstein and CIP, stating, "Epstein's work has been popular and influential on the right because it is a particularly fluent, elaborate form of climate denialism. The CIP prides itself on being able to train corporate leaders to 'successfully outmessage "environmentalists"'." He also criticizes Epstein for being an "ideologue" funded by petrochemical billionaires, the Koch brothers.

 

In 2016, Epstein testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee at the invitation of the committee's chairman, James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who has called climate change a "hoax." Epstein suggested that rising carbon dioxide levels "benefit plants and Americans." When questioned by committee member Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) as to why Epstein, whose academic training is in philosophy, was even there, Epstein responded, "to teach you how to think clearly." Boxer replied "... you are a philosopher, not a scientist, and I don’t appreciate getting lectured by a philosopher about science."

 

 

He is in no way qualified to talk about climate science.

Edited April 20, 2020 by Stokesy

[Thunderstruck]

4 hours ago, ri Alban said:

I could prove, without doubt, that Humans have accelerated climate change. With the pollution, clearing of forests, like the Amazon for livestock (The number one cause) and the dumping of our waste into the waters of the world and you'd still protest. But that's ok, every single person has that right to be wrong, I'm quite partial to it myself at times. 

 

Oh! Improvement, we'll just have a wee listen to the world around you, the others who share this world are having a ball with us out the road for a wee bit.

Anyway! I'm not saying we need to stop, immediately, but come on, I wouldn't throw my rubbish into your back garden, or piss into your kettle. Let's not do it to the rest of our neighborhood of this planet.

 

It's not up for debate anymore about how the climate has become like this, bud. 👍 

 

I'm not looking for a fight either, don't read this as hostile, just an opinion of a fellow Hearts Man. 👍

 

Aussie, you are confusing pollution with “carbon induced climate change”.
 

Ironically, pollution has been tacked onto the climate debate by politicians eager to, ahem, muddy the water and introduce a visible “bogey man”.

 

I completely agree that pollution is a huge problem but it is not going to lead to “catastrophic climate change” (short of all-out Atomic War, nothing we do will). It’s impact on climate is, at best, negligible and lost in the noise amidst our constantly changing and cyclical climate. 
 

It is argued, in some quarters, that a reduction in atmospheric soot and particulates had contributed to some warming. Equally, volcanic “ejecta” is argued to have minimal impact. Maybe that goes to show that science is never settled - that is why research continues. 
 

You mention the Amazon. Felling the Amazon isn’t ideal but neither is felling huge swathes of deciduous woodland in the US or pine forests in Scotland for timber that is chipped and fed into huge log-burning stoves like the Drax power station in Yorkshire. All on the basis that such burning to produce CO2 is “renewable”. It might be fully renewed in 30 years but not now.  
 

 

 

 

[H2]

13 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

 

What a load of utter shite. Where did you research? Give us an example of he source of this utter shite? Some conspiracy tit with a blog?

I will give you an example of where that 97% comes from and I will make a prediction. Call it a scientific prediction drawn from data, You will provide absolutely nothing with any credibility.

The following are scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action

Why would I waste my time debating anything with such an aggressive individual who has their mind made up, and really has on interest in any alternative view other than their own. Have a nice day!

[H2]

11 hours ago, Thunderstruck said:

You are correct.
 

You could say that 100% of scientists believe that there is climate change. They are 100% right, the existence of climate change cannot be disputed; it is an entirely natural phenomenon that has been around since the Earth got an atmosphere. The fact that Edinburgh is no longer under hundreds of feet of ice is clear evidence of natural climate change.  
 

You could say that 97% of scientists say than man is responsible for all climate change. They would, for the reasons above, be 100% wrong. 

 

If you were to say that there is a range of opinion among CLIMATE Scientists as to the impact of human activity in climate, you would be 100% correct. The range is from no opinion to zero effect to effecting most of change. 
 

11,994 Scientific Papers were considered by Cook in his sampling. Of these:
7,930 (66.4%) expressed no opinion on human effect. 
3,896 (32.6%) were of opinion there was “some” human effect. 
105 (0.8%) said man caused “most”. 
0 (0%) claimed any sort of catastrophic global warming. 
 

The “97% of Scientists” is a political construct as is the addition of “dangerous” and “catastrophe”. It is explained in the linked articles. 
 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#11b5dd973f9f

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joseph-bast-and-roy-spencer-the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97-1401145980

 

Thank you, I hope you have your tin helmet on 🙂

[H2]

6 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Aye. 

 

Are you an expert?

I already said I'm not an expert.

[Thunderstruck]

50 minutes ago, Stokesy said:

Epstein's education and work history:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Epstein_(American_writer)#Early_life_and_education

 

 

He is in no way qualified to talk about climate science.

 

Epstein is as entitled as anyone else to read the papers reach an opinion. It is for others to read that and weigh his opinion. 
 

Is he any less entitled to his opinion than Al Gore or Obama or Tony Blair or Greta Thunberg? Why are they entitled to talk about climate science? Although, to be fair to Greta, she does have a super-power, she can see CO2. 

 

On the other side of the equation, for example, Mann or Oreskes qualified to talk about and be held as icons of the Climate Change Movement? 
 

Mann, a geologist, self-proclaimed doyen of climate modelling and inventor of the “Hockey Stick”, was roundly criticised recently by a Judge after a protracted defamation case in B.C. He sued for defamation in the form of a claim that his climate models were rigged and designed to produce a desired result. He refused to release his programming code despite several orders from the Court. Read into that what you will. 
 

His models steadfastly continue to fail to match empirical evidence. 
 

Mann also features prominently in the “Climate-Gate” email scandal where he and scientists from U of East Anglia conspired to adjust temperature readings to emphasise warming. 
 

Oreskes is primarily a historian. Her research methodology is, as I have described, questionable. 

 

We are dangerous ground when debate on a topic is not permitted and when science is elevated to the level of a theology where no debate is permitted for fear of being labelled a heretic. It is verging on Medieval. 

 

”Climate Change is the new religion for folks who think themselves too clever to believe in a God”.

[Thunderstruck]

9 minutes ago, H2 said:

Thank you, I hope you have your tin helmet on 🙂

Cheers, I am at a bit of a loose end at the moment so more than happy to engage in lively debate.