Scrote
Well-known member
Who? Which prominent climate scientists have done a 180?
What evidence have they forwarded.
Which experiments have they proved defective?
If they're scientists it should all be about proof and not about belief.
Co2
- Thread starter Fridgeman
- Start date
What evidence have they forwarded.
Which experiments have they proved defective?
If they're scientists it should all be about proof and not about belief.
Again thanks I am not knocking you at all you maybe 100% right but if it turns out the the common consensus is wrong and we tax people into poverty how may lives will be lost and even if you are right you can tax all you like but out of that 0.01 rise how much does the uk actually contribute so in other words you could tax the uk into poverty and lower living standards all you like but I suspect it won’t make a blind bit of difference to the climate as there are much bigger players who are not on the same field we are playing on and probably never will
When I get some free time I will look up some honestly I am not looking for an argument I haven’t made up my mind but I do have questions and isn’t the science all about belief because who will be around in 100 years to prove the science right or wrong?
Noroomforpudding
Member
the chart has no authority.
is it one of yours?
it is irrelevant anyway without a much longer time frame and a more appropriate reference point than a recent snap shot.
Noroomforpudding
Member
Lets be realistic here.
There are many topics,
e.g. religion, brexit, facemasks, neil warnock, climate change, where people have entrenched views and no logical reasoned arguments are going to change their minds. Have you ever seen a tv political debate where one side has said, do you know, I never considered that. You are correct.
I am reminded of both Russell’s teapot and Monty Python’s 5 minute or 2 day argument choice.
if you are worried about mankind’s effect on climate change then either you are correct or have been influenced by project fear number ……….. sorry, lost count
There are many topics,
e.g. religion, brexit, facemasks, neil warnock, climate change, where people have entrenched views and no logical reasoned arguments are going to change their minds. Have you ever seen a tv political debate where one side has said, do you know, I never considered that. You are correct.
I am reminded of both Russell’s teapot and Monty Python’s 5 minute or 2 day argument choice.
if you are worried about mankind’s effect on climate change then either you are correct or have been influenced by project fear number ……….. sorry, lost count
Muttley
Well-known member
Why make up stuff like
When you can't name them or point to where you got the idea from?
Also when you say
You really haven't been paying attention. Our winters and summers are noticeably warmer than they were forty or fifty years ago. Even if you ignore the extremes of weather such more frequent damaging storms just the simple fact that I cannot remember the last time we had snow on the ground in the North East for more than a day or two yet I can remember days and weeks of snow, clearing it from the paths of elderly neighbours. The summer of '76 was supposedly the hottest on record. That record has been broken several times since. This isn't just the fanciful idea of a fearmonger it is real.
I am being lazy because I have been working today and I am tired but if you check out the Jordan Peterson videos on climate change it’s interesting stuff here are a few name though
Craig Idso is founder and former president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Patrick Moore is the former president of Greenpeace Canada
Anastasios Tsonis is a distinguished professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wisconsin
Denis Rancourt is a former professor of physics at University of Ottawa
Freeman Dyson is a professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study
Harrison Schmitt is a geologist, Apollo 17 astronaut
Steven E. Koonin is a theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.
These people are more qualified than most and do questions climate change or man made climate change so even if climate change is happening 100% the causation isn’t 100% agreed in the science community but we are going about taxing people anyway the reality is if you are wealthy enough you can pay the extra tax and not worry too much if the assumptions are wrong but what about those who are barely able to afford to live paying every climate levy and climate tax just in case can and will end in poverty hence my earlier reference to the ULEZ scene which is more about filling financial black holes than making a real difference to the climate/environment
Noroomforpudding
Member
You really haven't been paying attention
That’s rather rude and inappropriate
Your anecdote lacks gravity or evidence and so doesn’t support the theory of natural cycles being the cause of concern.
That’s rather rude and inappropriate
Your anecdote lacks gravity or evidence and so doesn’t support the theory of natural cycles being the cause of concern.
Wow really I worked over in Whitby so had to travel over each winter and I would guess that maybe two or three out of the last fifteen years have been snow free not completely but by large as for making things up just take some time looking at the climate change sceptics for online forums to YouTube videos and you will find that the topic of who or what is responsible for climate change has challenged and changed some prominent scientists they may still believe in the change but have changed their minds about causation it’s all out in the open if you look for it
newusername
Well-known member
Wow a 33% rise in atmospheric CO2 in the twenty years since 2000, that's massive.
Especially since the Greenhouse effect has been known about for about 100 years and politicians in the 1980's & 1990's were talking about man-made global warming, eg Thatcher in November 1989 she addressed the UN general assembly in New York highlighting the “insidious danger” climate change posed by “the prospect of irretrievable damage to the atmosphere, to the oceans, to earth itself.” She went on to say "It is mankind and his activities which are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways.”
Steer
Well-known member
It is a very regular occurrance for the TV weatherman / woman to mention that this was the warmest / coldest / wettest / dryest month or week or season on record. I don't belive that thay are part of a conspiracy, and it seems fairly clear that the climate is changing for whatever reason.
Northern sea routes being opened where there were unthinkable in the past due to ice are clear examples of change.
Northern sea routes being opened where there were unthinkable in the past due to ice are clear examples of change.
Oh one more thing I got sunburned in 1976 all across my shoulders and then not again until the early 2000s the year my daughter was born then strangely enough last year so if each summer had genuinely got hotter there would have been more episodes most of my summers have been disappointing and as I have said most the winters have had snow that’s why I described not seeing much difference in my fifty odd years maybe it’s just my perception
ThatFragranceGuy
Well-known member
Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
A tiny fraction of scientists don't agree, but it really is a tiny fraction.
A tiny fraction of scientists also believe in god despite fossils and Meteor fragments far predating mankind.
The first person on your list is funded by Exxon
What do you mean by "genuinely hotter"; are you saying that the figures are wrong?
This is a really bizarre post - you're comparing measured temperature data of hundreds of thousands of data points to your recollection of sunburn and the fact we had snow.
Are the satellite images of melting ice wrong? Coral reef die offs coincidental? Attenborough just making stuff up?
Noroomforpudding
Member
Having followed his thoughtful and polite posts, he isn’t questioning climate variation, but the causes of it. We are paying a high price in primary and secondary taxation, when we may not be causing the problem, so turning us upside down and shaking may have no affect on climate variationScientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
A tiny fraction of scientists don't agree, but it really is a tiny fraction.
A tiny fraction of scientists also believe in god despite fossils and Meteor fragments far predating mankind.
The first person on your list is funded by Exxon
What do you mean by "genuinely hotter"; are you saying that the figures are wrong?
This is a really bizarre post - you're comparing measured temperature data of hundreds of thousands of data points to your recollection of sunburn and the fact we had snow.
Are the satellite images of melting ice wrong? Coral reef die offs coincidental? Attenborough just making stuff up?
You maybe right about 33% I have looked into that but the original point was co2 making up 0.04 percent of the atmosphere up from 0.03 two decades ago so I would guess that roughly a 33% rise in c02 volume equals a 0.01 percent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions but the real point is where this increase is coming from what is the breakdown of the 33% in terms of the fuel we burn vs population growth we all breath in out so if for example 29% was due to population growth and 4% due to fossil fuels do we stop people having families?
This exactly
ThatFragranceGuy
Well-known member
But then surely the majority of scientists would agree instead of a tiny, tiny portion? Strangely a lot seem to be republicans as well, or appear on shows like InfoWars.
Noroomforpudding
Member
But then surely the majority of scientists would agree instead of a tiny, tiny portion
This is not fact. Maybe if you say it often enough, people will believe it.
This is not fact. Maybe if you say it often enough, people will believe it.
ThatFragranceGuy
Well-known member
Ok new member
No not at all but you are also being very specific in regards to timelines the timelines referenced are relatively short compared to the age of the earth so to draw a real conclusion you would need to go back further to before records began if you use the data in this way you can draw a completely different conclusion but that is the whole point of the post really it’s all about perception not only about short periods of warming but causation by whom and whenScientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
A tiny fraction of scientists don't agree, but it really is a tiny fraction.
A tiny fraction of scientists also believe in god despite fossils and Meteor fragments far predating mankind.
The first person on your list is funded by Exxon
What do you mean by "genuinely hotter"; are you saying that the figures are wrong?
This is a really bizarre post - you're comparing measured temperature data of hundreds of thousands of data points to your recollection of sunburn and the fact we had snow.
Are the satellite images of melting ice wrong? Coral reef die offs coincidental? Attenborough just making stuff up?
One more thing that bothers me tremendously is if indeed mankind we are causing climate change is it a bad thing? I don’t mean sound flippant so sorry if it comes across that way but what I mean is the world is overdue an ice age so let’s say there were no c02 increases and the world got 2 degrees colder each decade for the next 100 years wouldn’t that be even worse for mankind?