Perhaps aviation biggest challenge....
Also dr dre (and Mk 1), I will happily (and humbly) stand and be counted beside people like these:
and this man,
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...n-climate-lies
(yes, published by more far right wingers so obviously any facts in here automatically don’t count....I guess).
And yes, I have read this:
https://skepticalscience.com/Nils-Ax...evel-rise.html
and plenty more on that and likeminded websites. It makes me want to weep for the future of millenials when I think (not too often, I do have a life, even if I am getting to the latter end of it), of the multiple billions spent by governments around the world every year ‘fighting’ climate change!
Imagine all the good that could have been done with that money. Building power stations in Africa for a start and then the children could have light to study with at night and their parents have electric stoves to cook food on instead of burning dried cow dung, paid for by working in the factories that could now be set up, producing basic necessities at first and then as the newly better educated workforce grows up, progressing to more sophisicated products. (Never mind just bringing clean water to everyone there).
This for every impoverished people around the world. And then they could get on with living a dignified and happier life in this world instead of only trying to survive miserably in it until they get to wherever their particular promised land is.
Yes, I know, I am just an old fool who thinks way too simplisticly about these things. I am all for a cleaner environment. I hate waste of any kind. But I do not believe in keeping the rest of the world impoverished while we in the developed one live ‘high on the hog’ and waste incredible, vast amounts of money on crazy, vanity renewable energy products etc that never pay for themselves and only serve to make the rich richer.
All based on unproven premises delivered by fantastically well funded (at vast taxpayer expense), lobby groups and individuals of every variety imaginable that are driven on by money grabbing politicians, delighted for the opportunity to invent new taxes every year to ‘save us from climate change’......
And so yes, from where I stand climate change ‘alarmists’ are suffering from (or for sound financial reasons are willingly and knowingly going along with) this obscenely well funded mass hysteria and have proven that they are immune to facts and the evidence in front of their noses.
And as they have the backing of the majority of those said moneygr.. sorry, noble, trustworty and wise people we refer to as politicians, I have no doubt that it is highly unlikely that I will live long enough to see an end to this madness.
If you have read this far and and you share dr dre and Mk 1’s amazement that dinosaurs like me still exist, feel free to ignore the aberration that we obviously are.
(“97% of climate scientists agree...” - don’t make me laugh, absolute bunkum!)
and this man,
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...n-climate-lies
(yes, published by more far right wingers so obviously any facts in here automatically don’t count....I guess).
And yes, I have read this:
https://skepticalscience.com/Nils-Ax...evel-rise.html
and plenty more on that and likeminded websites. It makes me want to weep for the future of millenials when I think (not too often, I do have a life, even if I am getting to the latter end of it), of the multiple billions spent by governments around the world every year ‘fighting’ climate change!
Imagine all the good that could have been done with that money. Building power stations in Africa for a start and then the children could have light to study with at night and their parents have electric stoves to cook food on instead of burning dried cow dung, paid for by working in the factories that could now be set up, producing basic necessities at first and then as the newly better educated workforce grows up, progressing to more sophisicated products. (Never mind just bringing clean water to everyone there).
This for every impoverished people around the world. And then they could get on with living a dignified and happier life in this world instead of only trying to survive miserably in it until they get to wherever their particular promised land is.
Yes, I know, I am just an old fool who thinks way too simplisticly about these things. I am all for a cleaner environment. I hate waste of any kind. But I do not believe in keeping the rest of the world impoverished while we in the developed one live ‘high on the hog’ and waste incredible, vast amounts of money on crazy, vanity renewable energy products etc that never pay for themselves and only serve to make the rich richer.
All based on unproven premises delivered by fantastically well funded (at vast taxpayer expense), lobby groups and individuals of every variety imaginable that are driven on by money grabbing politicians, delighted for the opportunity to invent new taxes every year to ‘save us from climate change’......
And so yes, from where I stand climate change ‘alarmists’ are suffering from (or for sound financial reasons are willingly and knowingly going along with) this obscenely well funded mass hysteria and have proven that they are immune to facts and the evidence in front of their noses.
And as they have the backing of the majority of those said moneygr.. sorry, noble, trustworty and wise people we refer to as politicians, I have no doubt that it is highly unlikely that I will live long enough to see an end to this madness.
If you have read this far and and you share dr dre and Mk 1’s amazement that dinosaurs like me still exist, feel free to ignore the aberration that we obviously are.
(“97% of climate scientists agree...” - don’t make me laugh, absolute bunkum!)
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you don't agree that climate change is occurring
- You need to somehow show that that extreme weather isn't getting more extreme and more frequent.
- You need to prove that CO2 and other greenhouse gases do not have a greenhouse effect or that they aren't increasing.
- You need to explain why governments should somehow conspire to promote the idea of climate change and why the oil and coal companies, who make tens of billions in profits each year aren't simply saying "Hold on, here's the real science".
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only way we change is when we become motivated to change. We could be motivated sufficiently by a cost savings ( new technology) or by fear for our lives....not much else.
Can anyone think of something else that would motivate the majority of human kind to change their behaviours?
I can’t.
With that in mind we should be pouring a fair bit of money into R&D because Joe Bloggs won’t fear for his life until the waves are crashing at his door and it’s 48 degrees in the shade.
Can anyone think of something else that would motivate the majority of human kind to change their behaviours?
I can’t.
With that in mind we should be pouring a fair bit of money into R&D because Joe Bloggs won’t fear for his life until the waves are crashing at his door and it’s 48 degrees in the shade.
Worldwide famine. When there is no food in our bellies, what do we think about. Many examples of its consequences, one that is close to the flavour of our forum, aviation, is the Andes Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 crash .
Nothing less than the ultimate disaster of complete lack of food is capable of changing our behaviour.
msjh, thanks for not asking for anything too complicated requiring formula and calculation from me - my engineering days are a long way behind me now..
Quote:
“You need to somehow show that that extreme weather isn't getting more extreme and more frequent.”
https://www.investors.com/politics/e...-more-extreme/
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...-more-extreme/
Yes, I know that there are a lot more articles saying that it is. I refer you back to my earlier comments about the incredibly well tax-payer funded worldwide ‘climate change’ industry....
Remember, no-one I know is arguing that climate is not changing. It always has and always will. I just find it incredible that so many people are so set on giving away billions to those that are already the richest for what will almost certainly be zero, and probably a negative return.
Quote:
“You need to prove that CO2 and other greenhouse gases do not have a greenhouse effect or that they aren't increasing.”
Why?
I prefer to believe what an expert such as the physicist Professor Williiam Happer has to say on the beneficial effects of an increase in CO2. If you have not heard him speak as he has many times on the subject, you should search and listen to what he has to say. It could just put your mind more at ease.
And as Dr. Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, and a former NASA scientist has said in the past,
“The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causes ‘global warming’ — in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent. There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean anything in science, it’s not significant…”
The important word there is ‘significant’.
He also said:
“The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis about our climate which says it has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences.”
And who in the UK has forgotten the mind-blowingly stupid fiasco of the UK converting coal-fired power stations to burn wood pellets shipped in from the US, in order to meet EU carbon targets...... (You couldn’t make it up....)
Quote:
“You need to explain why governments should somehow conspire to promote the idea of climate change and why the oil and coal companies, who make tens of billions in profits each year aren't simply saying "Hold on, here's the real science".”
That’s easy. Money.
We know why the oil and coal companies do not shout out the facts too loudly. The ‘alarmists’ scream and shout that they are just lying so they can continue to make their billions. (By the way ‘their billions’ are just a shadow beside the trillions made by governments taxing their product.)
And I have no doubt that they have worked out that most of us will keep driving our fossil fuelled cars for the forseeable future and in the meantime it is much easier to keep a low profile and just use their billions to get in on the money making climate change scam in any way they can.
There are thousands of highly qualified scientists and real climate experts around the world with absolutely nothing to gain, and plenty to lose, who have been desperately trying to get the verifiable facts out to the world for years now. But they are shouted down and drowned out by the worldwide juggernaut that is the ‘Climate Change Industry’ which has grown from nothing and out of pretty much nothing, in a relatively short period of time.
(The Washington Times ran an article in 2015 about the $1.5 trillion ‘global climate change industry’. In 2015!
This was made up of an industry with “9 segments and 38 sub-segments”.
I mean, just think about the climate change ‘consulting’ market alone.
(I am sure there are plenty of more recent facts and figures avaiable but I do not want to give this any more of my Sat eve.)
Then we have carbon-trading. You know, that gas of life that has been demonised by the green lobby. Our friend Mr Gore has done very nicely out of that particular scam while being a major producer of the stuff himself. (Again, you couldn’t make it up...)
And you need to ask the question above....?
Quote:
“You need to somehow show that that extreme weather isn't getting more extreme and more frequent.”
https://www.investors.com/politics/e...-more-extreme/
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...-more-extreme/
Yes, I know that there are a lot more articles saying that it is. I refer you back to my earlier comments about the incredibly well tax-payer funded worldwide ‘climate change’ industry....
Remember, no-one I know is arguing that climate is not changing. It always has and always will. I just find it incredible that so many people are so set on giving away billions to those that are already the richest for what will almost certainly be zero, and probably a negative return.
Quote:
“You need to prove that CO2 and other greenhouse gases do not have a greenhouse effect or that they aren't increasing.”
Why?
I prefer to believe what an expert such as the physicist Professor Williiam Happer has to say on the beneficial effects of an increase in CO2. If you have not heard him speak as he has many times on the subject, you should search and listen to what he has to say. It could just put your mind more at ease.
And as Dr. Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, and a former NASA scientist has said in the past,
“The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causes ‘global warming’ — in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent. There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean anything in science, it’s not significant…”
The important word there is ‘significant’.
He also said:
“The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis about our climate which says it has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences.”
And who in the UK has forgotten the mind-blowingly stupid fiasco of the UK converting coal-fired power stations to burn wood pellets shipped in from the US, in order to meet EU carbon targets...... (You couldn’t make it up....)
Quote:
“You need to explain why governments should somehow conspire to promote the idea of climate change and why the oil and coal companies, who make tens of billions in profits each year aren't simply saying "Hold on, here's the real science".”
That’s easy. Money.
We know why the oil and coal companies do not shout out the facts too loudly. The ‘alarmists’ scream and shout that they are just lying so they can continue to make their billions. (By the way ‘their billions’ are just a shadow beside the trillions made by governments taxing their product.)
And I have no doubt that they have worked out that most of us will keep driving our fossil fuelled cars for the forseeable future and in the meantime it is much easier to keep a low profile and just use their billions to get in on the money making climate change scam in any way they can.
There are thousands of highly qualified scientists and real climate experts around the world with absolutely nothing to gain, and plenty to lose, who have been desperately trying to get the verifiable facts out to the world for years now. But they are shouted down and drowned out by the worldwide juggernaut that is the ‘Climate Change Industry’ which has grown from nothing and out of pretty much nothing, in a relatively short period of time.
(The Washington Times ran an article in 2015 about the $1.5 trillion ‘global climate change industry’. In 2015!
This was made up of an industry with “9 segments and 38 sub-segments”.
I mean, just think about the climate change ‘consulting’ market alone.
(I am sure there are plenty of more recent facts and figures avaiable but I do not want to give this any more of my Sat eve.)
Then we have carbon-trading. You know, that gas of life that has been demonised by the green lobby. Our friend Mr Gore has done very nicely out of that particular scam while being a major producer of the stuff himself. (Again, you couldn’t make it up...)
And you need to ask the question above....?
Last edited by John Boeman; 24th May 2019 at 21:08. Reason: Irrelevant paragraph removed.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: taterville
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a myth. It is the wet dream of globalists seeking to transfer wealth from the 1st World to the rest.
In the last century the planet has warmed 0.9 degrees C. Not a big deal.
Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas, less than 1% of the atmosphere
The hysteria was created by a few scientists, like Michael Mann of Penn State University, who "created" a computer model to project what increases in carbon dioxide would have on temperatures around the world. His models used amplifier, called the "Feedback Loop", much like the feedback effect one gets when you move a microphone too close to its loudspeaker, a complete fabrication, which made the resultant increases in temperatures seem much more dire. It was all made up... and used by cynical politicians like Al Gore, to enrich themselves, and by others to demand fixes like the "New Green Deal", which cedes every increasing power and authority to government.
1/7 of the plant life on the planet is due to the increase in CO2.
Willie Soon, Patrick Michaels, Prof. Lindzen of MIT, Raul Alegre of France, are just a few of more notable climate experts who have said AGW is the biggest scientific hoax ever perpetuated on the world.
The very real threat is the fact that the sun has gone into a period of relative inactivity, which will cause significant cooling world wide.
Or as Willie Soon said, "Its the Sun Stupid!"
In the last century the planet has warmed 0.9 degrees C. Not a big deal.
Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas, less than 1% of the atmosphere
The hysteria was created by a few scientists, like Michael Mann of Penn State University, who "created" a computer model to project what increases in carbon dioxide would have on temperatures around the world. His models used amplifier, called the "Feedback Loop", much like the feedback effect one gets when you move a microphone too close to its loudspeaker, a complete fabrication, which made the resultant increases in temperatures seem much more dire. It was all made up... and used by cynical politicians like Al Gore, to enrich themselves, and by others to demand fixes like the "New Green Deal", which cedes every increasing power and authority to government.
1/7 of the plant life on the planet is due to the increase in CO2.
Willie Soon, Patrick Michaels, Prof. Lindzen of MIT, Raul Alegre of France, are just a few of more notable climate experts who have said AGW is the biggest scientific hoax ever perpetuated on the world.
The very real threat is the fact that the sun has gone into a period of relative inactivity, which will cause significant cooling world wide.
Or as Willie Soon said, "Its the Sun Stupid!"
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a myth. It is the wet dream of globalists seeking to transfer wealth from the 1st World to the rest.
In the last century the planet has warmed 0.9 degrees C. Not a big deal.
Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas, less than 1% of the atmosphere
The hysteria was created by a few scientists, like Michael Mann of Penn State University, who "created" a computer model to project what increases in carbon dioxide would have on temperatures around the world. His models used amplifier, called the "Feedback Loop", much like the feedback effect one gets when you move a microphone too close to its loudspeaker, a complete fabrication, which made the resultant increases in temperatures seem much more dire. It was all made up... and used by cynical politicians like Al Gore, to enrich themselves, and by others to demand fixes like the "New Green Deal", which cedes every increasing power and authority to government.
1/7 of the plant life on the planet is due to the increase in CO2.
Willie Soon, Patrick Michaels, Prof. Lindzen of MIT, Raul Alegre of France, are just a few of more notable climate experts who have said AGW is the biggest scientific hoax ever perpetuated on the world.
The very real threat is the fact that the sun has gone into a period of relative inactivity, which will cause significant cooling world wide.
Or as Willie Soon said, "Its the Sun Stupid!"
In the last century the planet has warmed 0.9 degrees C. Not a big deal.
Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas, less than 1% of the atmosphere
The hysteria was created by a few scientists, like Michael Mann of Penn State University, who "created" a computer model to project what increases in carbon dioxide would have on temperatures around the world. His models used amplifier, called the "Feedback Loop", much like the feedback effect one gets when you move a microphone too close to its loudspeaker, a complete fabrication, which made the resultant increases in temperatures seem much more dire. It was all made up... and used by cynical politicians like Al Gore, to enrich themselves, and by others to demand fixes like the "New Green Deal", which cedes every increasing power and authority to government.
1/7 of the plant life on the planet is due to the increase in CO2.
Willie Soon, Patrick Michaels, Prof. Lindzen of MIT, Raul Alegre of France, are just a few of more notable climate experts who have said AGW is the biggest scientific hoax ever perpetuated on the world.
The very real threat is the fact that the sun has gone into a period of relative inactivity, which will cause significant cooling world wide.
Or as Willie Soon said, "Its the Sun Stupid!"
John Boeman
Just picking up on one of your points. Perhaps you should re-think who you ‘believe’ in their commentary on climate science. Professor William Harper is a physicist, not a climate scientist so probably has as much credibility in this field as a journalist commenting on aviation.
You probably won’t ‘believe’ this article but it provides a brief debunking of Professor Happer’s erroneous claims
https://skepticalscience.com/even-pr...-mistakes.html
Just picking up on one of your points. Perhaps you should re-think who you ‘believe’ in their commentary on climate science. Professor William Harper is a physicist, not a climate scientist so probably has as much credibility in this field as a journalist commenting on aviation.
You probably won’t ‘believe’ this article but it provides a brief debunking of Professor Happer’s erroneous claims
https://skepticalscience.com/even-pr...-mistakes.html
(“97% of climate scientists agree...” - don’t make me laugh, absolute bunkum!)
Multiple peer reviewed studies published in reputable scientific journals have backed up the 97% figure. Here’s NASA’s take on the subject:
Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming
(but hey, I guess they faked the moon landing so they’re experts at hoaxing the public right?)
Yes, I know you can point to a handful of deniers with supposed authority to back up your claims, but you fail to mention things like supposed expert William Happer is an optical physicist with no formal education in climate science, or Leslie Woodcock writes for conspiracy theorist claptrap site Breitbart, or Nils-Axel Mörner’s (again a geologist not a climate scientist) work has been debunked multiple times by actual climate scientists, or Patrick Moore (again, a biologist not a climate scientist) is paid by the fossil fuel industry.
You’ll accuse me of playing the man, not the ball. I don’t need to, the ball has been played many times already by the tens of thousands of actual Climate scientists and reputable worldwide scientific organisations who have spent decades studying in this specific field and whom all lead to the same conclusion.
And so yes, from where I stand climate change ‘alarmists’ are suffering from (or for sound financial reasons are willingly and knowingly going along with) this obscenely well funded mass hysteria and have proven that they are immune to facts and the evidence in front of their noses.
If you have read this far and and you share dr dre and Mk 1’s amazement that dinosaurs like me still exist, feel free to ignore the aberration that we obviously are
It does give me hope that the current popular fight against climate change is being led by the youth, their leader being 16 years of age. They will be the ones who will have to deal with this problem in 2075. Why so far in the future? That’s when they will be the same age as the current US President. You can see why they are greatly concerned.
- “there is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades.”
- “low confidence due to limited evidence, however, that anthropogenic climate change has affected the frequency and the magnitude of floods.”
- “streamflow trends since 1950 are non-statistically significant in most of the world’s largest rivers.”
Despite their own evidence, the authors of the report then go on to say that extreme weather has already increased. In the real world, this is called lying or fraud.
The problem with Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) is that you need to show the Catastrophic part, otherwise it's a little like a fart in crowded elevator; a little embarrassing, a little annoying, but ultimately forgettable and of no real consequence.
All of the CAGW alarm is based on the word "if". A very power word is if, but if we are going to rent our hair shirts, then I would prefer proof, not wet dreams. There is no evidence to date of the C part of CAGW. There are projections, predictions, fears & hopes but nothing that stands alone as proof. Even the IPCC is not silly enough to go there (except of course with the discredited, by their own attached report, summary for policy makers sections).
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do a proper research, talk with professionals from universities and cross check what you hear.
Study study and study some more to draw your OWN conclusions about the “issue” and you’ll see that CO2 isn’t what they want it to look like.
Don’t be like the chemtrail/flat earth people. Do ask around.
The only problem is you types will only accept proof once you see the crops failing, the seas rising and flooding coastal cities, previously habitable areas becoming uninhabitable, wildfire season starting in winter instead of summer (whoops, that is happening right now). And then you’ll probably just say it was unavoidable anyway.
Do something about it now to prevent it (or more accurately now just dampen the effects) and because it wasn’t as bad as what was forecast you’ll claim that the money spent was a total waste. Sort of like the year 2000 “Millenium Bug” scare when skeptics pointed out afterwards, despite forecasts of disaster, that nothing bad happened therefore the money spent was a total waste, completely disregarding the fact that the billions spent on updating software prior to the event prevented much of the forecasted computer failures.
Like I said in my previous post I’m glad the popular fight (the knowledge fight has already been won by the overwhelming bulk of the science world) is now being led by the youth. 16 year olds who will have to deal with these issues in 2075 when they are the same age as the current US President, and long after almost all climate deniers have long since departed.
Do something about it now to prevent it (or more accurately now just dampen the effects) and because it wasn’t as bad as what was forecast you’ll claim that the money spent was a total waste. Sort of like the year 2000 “Millenium Bug” scare when skeptics pointed out afterwards, despite forecasts of disaster, that nothing bad happened therefore the money spent was a total waste, completely disregarding the fact that the billions spent on updating software prior to the event prevented much of the forecasted computer failures.
Like I said in my previous post I’m glad the popular fight (the knowledge fight has already been won by the overwhelming bulk of the science world) is now being led by the youth. 16 year olds who will have to deal with these issues in 2075 when they are the same age as the current US President, and long after almost all climate deniers have long since departed.
Last edited by dr dre; 24th May 2019 at 22:55.
Science is messy; there is almost always incomplete data, uncertainty, anomalies and disagreement. That’s why those of us who aren’t climate scientists go with the scientific consensus. To do otherwise is to assume you know enough to go with a minority opinion.
You can’t Google your way into being a climate scientist. But you can Google your way into having just enough understanding to bolster your own prejudices.
Start reading champ:
https://skepticalscience.com/
Oh and if you didn’t read my post before:
Drought, wind and heat: Bushfire season is starting earlier and lasting longer
https://skepticalscience.com/
Oh and if you didn’t read my post before:
Drought, wind and heat: Bushfire season is starting earlier and lasting longer
Start reading champ:
https://skepticalscience.com/
Oh and if you didn’t read my post before:
Drought, wind and heat: Bushfire season is starting earlier and lasting longer
Do have anything factual?
layman,
I view your ‘skepticalscience’ website the way you probably (and dr dre definitely) view the ouput of the NIPCC. I think we are wasting each others time here. All the information is out there. I chose to believe the unfunded underdogs, based on the evidence they present and the evidence in front on my eyes, combined with some common sense.
The only reason I have come into this discussion, with my ‘egregious’ (give me a break dre!) contribution was because it looked extremely one sided to me (a bit like watching the BBC dealing with Brexit...).
So dr dre,
you have written a lot of words yourself which from my point of view I will only label as misinformed.
The mythical 97% figure so beloved of politicians and the misinformed has been utterly debunked many times over. Multiple peer reviews in scientific journals my ass. Most people nowadays are aware of these peers who love to massage each others egos and keep the money rolling in. Stop kidding yourself, you are certainly not kidding the informed.
I am not going to get into a point by point pissing contest with you right now (and probably not in future either, chasing lost causes is too depressing and a waste of time) but I am interested to hear your description and criticism of Patrick Moore and the video I linked earlier.
Please do tell us why HE doesn’t know what he is talking about.
I view your ‘skepticalscience’ website the way you probably (and dr dre definitely) view the ouput of the NIPCC. I think we are wasting each others time here. All the information is out there. I chose to believe the unfunded underdogs, based on the evidence they present and the evidence in front on my eyes, combined with some common sense.
The only reason I have come into this discussion, with my ‘egregious’ (give me a break dre!) contribution was because it looked extremely one sided to me (a bit like watching the BBC dealing with Brexit...).
So dr dre,
you have written a lot of words yourself which from my point of view I will only label as misinformed.
The mythical 97% figure so beloved of politicians and the misinformed has been utterly debunked many times over. Multiple peer reviews in scientific journals my ass. Most people nowadays are aware of these peers who love to massage each others egos and keep the money rolling in. Stop kidding yourself, you are certainly not kidding the informed.
I am not going to get into a point by point pissing contest with you right now (and probably not in future either, chasing lost causes is too depressing and a waste of time) but I am interested to hear your description and criticism of Patrick Moore and the video I linked earlier.
Please do tell us why HE doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Can anyone explain to me why the above graphic shouldn’t be referenced or is somehow unreliable?
Genuine question.
PS Thanks to all contributors to this thread regardless of which position you hold. I am finding it useful.
So dr dre,
you have written a lot of words yourself which from my point of view I will only label as misinformed.
The mythical 97% figure so beloved of politicians and the misinformed has been utterly debunked many times over. Multiple peer reviews in scientific journals my ass.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Please do tell us why HE doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Here’s some actual climate scientists debunking his claims. There were a lot more but I couldn’t be bothered posting them all:
https://skepticalscience.com/moore-2012.html
https://amp.theguardian.com/environm...cience-deniers
Patrick Moore vs. Patrick Moore on Climate Change | PolluterWatch
He may have been involved with Greenpeace decades ago but it’s obvious he’s sold out his beliefs and his trailing to be a paid stooge for the fossil fuel industry. Some people will say anything as long as you pay them the money.
The problem is deniers think there is a legitimate debate between legitimate scientists. There isn’t. Here’s a mathematically accurate representation of the debate:
Well , if those of us following and contributing to this thread refrain from using terms that invoke emotion ( tree huggers, deniers, zealots, you types etc etc) and explain to each other what they think has happened, will happen, and why they think that, we might get a bit closer to developing a realistic understanding.
We essentially have two teams, the ‘ All our grandchildren are going to die’ team and the ‘ this is all just hysteria’ team.
I’d be surprised if the actual reality wasn’t hidden somewhere in between.
Now......can anyone tell me why the graphic above with the thermometer reading depiction shouldn’t be used when assessing temperatures for that particular area and time span?
We essentially have two teams, the ‘ All our grandchildren are going to die’ team and the ‘ this is all just hysteria’ team.
I’d be surprised if the actual reality wasn’t hidden somewhere in between.
Now......can anyone tell me why the graphic above with the thermometer reading depiction shouldn’t be used when assessing temperatures for that particular area and time span?
Psychophysiological entity
I'm old. I'm shutting my mind to the world's problems. Almost.
This program really grabbed me. 129 billion tonnes of water in the world's atmosphere. Well, it all started from doing tests on one cloud. The tonnage of a CB. Sheesh, no wonder they gave me the sh . . . ivers.
But one thing was astonishing. The surface temperature of the oceans. A big player. The particulate matter in the atmosphere - it's complicated and works in reverse when the particles are fine.
I really am starting to believe in Gyre. You know what I mean. Perhaps she can communicate with the sun and tell it to throttle back a bit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p026yzxz
This program really grabbed me. 129 billion tonnes of water in the world's atmosphere. Well, it all started from doing tests on one cloud. The tonnage of a CB. Sheesh, no wonder they gave me the sh . . . ivers.
But one thing was astonishing. The surface temperature of the oceans. A big player. The particulate matter in the atmosphere - it's complicated and works in reverse when the particles are fine.
I really am starting to believe in Gyre. You know what I mean. Perhaps she can communicate with the sun and tell it to throttle back a bit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p026yzxz