Scientists & engineers (I'm not talking about that dubious 11000 list), versus someone who's argument is to call people names... ... hmm, difficult choice there. Who to believe??? What ever happened to reasoned debate? I listened to a geology scientist on the radio this afternoon talking about fracking. Not selling it or defending it, but just saying exactly what it is and how it works. His reasoned, measured approach went a long way towards me moving my position on fracking from anti to not being nearly so worried about it because I now have a much better understanding of the process. Find some good solid argument based on genuine data that proves global warming and climate change is not a major issue, and I'll listen. Calling everyone who doesn't hold your point of view a snowflake and brainwashed is getting really boring.
Engineers are not typically not specululaters or experts in global climate so disregard any viable reference to their opinions. Science: our water supply has been reliably tested, documented, and determined that it has a extremely high concentration of a commonly used, extremely powerful solvent used for many industrial purposes known as Dihydrogen Monoxide. This compound is also used by farmers to accelerate food source plant growth. ANY FORM OF EXPOSURE WITH THIS SUBSTANCE RESULTS IN A 100% FATALITY RATE IN ALL LIFE FORMS!!! . This is all swept under the table, and in fact it doesn't even need a warning labels or a MSD or SDS data sheets. Oh BTW one of the latest rage is low NOX boilers, how do you achieve this, simply enrich the combustion fuel supply past the stochimetric qaunities so it runs "rich", NOX percentage naturely falls to less than 12% of the polluntants to meet certification and it operates at less efficiency, but at the end of the day due to lower efficiency the actual NOX released is higher, as are profits. Green movement generates lots of green cash.
The interesting thing is that climate alarmists seem, in the main, to be meteorologists and journalists whereas the few sceptics (aka deniers) that get an airing are more likely to be cosmologists or geologists. The defining difference between the groups is the time frame they apply to their subject (I would not accuse journalists of ‘study’). For the avoidance of doubt I do not believe that David Attenborough is a living saint. I do get exercised about pollution and habitat destruction and pseudo science that fails the ‘gross error check’ I.e. is this what you would expect or so far out of of kilter that you need to question the result......
There is a program (Mega Disasters) on Blaze tonight predicting an imminent mini ice age: https://www.blaze.tv/live/553 They are saying that the last mini ice age only really ended just before 1900 when sun activity increased again and the debris from 3 major volcano erruptions cleared...so warming not due to industralisation then. Greta is going to be really really pissed
I heard today that one way Greta can get back to Europe is by dog sled, the abudance of ice means that she could travel across the ice from Alaska to Russia. However it may be risky as there is also an abundance of Polar Bears which are currently thriving... Wouldn't that be hillarious Greta travels home by ice, but unfortunatelly gets eaten by a Polar Bear on the way Note for the snowflakes, no I do not wish Greta to come to any harm.
"Fake Claim 2" is brilliant. Not only does he write "would of", it's about urbanisation and building on flood plains. What does that have to do with climate change, anthropogenic or otherwise? "Fake Claim 4" just swerves the question. What happened to "Fake Claim 5"? Failed peer review? "Fake Claim 6" completely ignores the fact that the so-called research that came up with the infamous "97% of scientists" was just some bloke deciding whether scientific papers were pro or anti man-made climate change, and, needless to say, he, more or less, decided that if a paper was not explicity against man-made climate change, then that meant that it supported man-made climate change (a simplification, but you get the idea).
It's more than dubious, even without Micky (sic) Mouse and Dumbledore, and the woman who bought her degree online and claims to have discovered the thermostat that controls the temperature of the planet, and the lawyer, and the sociologists, and the bloke who works in "BS Detection", and so on. The media presented it as a scientific paper or a report, but it was just a website with a button that you could click then enter your name. In other words, it was a petition and a "Like" button.
Graeme_D said: ↑ https://www.hull.ac.uk/special/blog...nge-is-fake-and-why-we-know-theyre-wrong.aspx He claimed his fake debunking would prove “Man Made” climate change. Not sure it did really. Amongst other things he failed to mention other rapid climate changes - eg when we lost the land link between France and Uk. He only goes back 10k years which is like (less than) a minute ago in geological terms and is not enough to prove a point. Other factors aren’t discussed as causes (solar fluctuations and cycles, variation of angle of earth rotation relative to the Sun, etc). Then the classic - failure to acknowledge that all the carbon being released into the atmosphere was once already there (with a larger diversity of life). The natural conclusion is that change is bad for the earth. It wasn’t written with proper scientific rigour. Simply - I’m clever and u are wrong.
Hope you can see this, a butcher spotting the not eat meat meat debates holes https://www.facebook.com/1503441039926938/posts/2499387266998972?vh=e&d=n&sfns=mo
Yes climate change has been happening for millennia, but never at the speed at which it is happening now, (apart fro huge natural disasters along the way). Huge changes over VERY long periods aren't a huge problem, but changes over a short duration are. I'm pretty sure most of us realise it's happening but it's easier to remain comfortable about our habits if we decide it's not really happening. We're pretty much fucked and we deserve it.
Sorry but you are making factual assertions you cannot possibly substantiate...... like ‘never at the speed at which it is happening now’. It would appear the Mayan and other ancient civilisations may have been impacted by rapid changes never mind pre-history when humans barely featured in the landscape, if at all.
The Mayan were wiped out by the Spanish! (and Spanish viruses). ...and as for for substantiating, you only need an internet connection and the ability to read.
