| One for anyone and everyone else... 00:40 - Sep 24 with 2313 views | DJack |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-53640382
| |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |  |
| One for anyone and everyone else... on 10:27 - Sep 24 with 2264 views | Catullus |
Big business caught lying to protect it's profits, shocker!
As it goes I've tended to think that most of the warming is part of the natural cycle of the planet. I've been more worried about destruction of habitats, humans causing extinctions and (as with the bee) causing damage to the natural balance of nature which could have disasrous effects for all of us.
This article though, it shows that for the last 32 years (at least) the fossil fuel suppliers have been wilfully destroying the planet just to make a few extra bucks. Is there any greater stupidity? Money truly is a great evil. | |
| |
| One for anyone and everyone else... on 12:53 - Sep 24 with 2239 views | A_Fans_Dad |
It has already been tried by New York and they failed.
So don't hold your breath. | | | |
| One for anyone and everyone else... on 15:10 - Sep 24 with 2210 views | Humpty |
There was a very good series on this on Radio 4 recently, including admissions from some who used to peddle this nonsense.
It's still available for anyone who wants to learn more.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000l7q1 | | | |
| One for anyone and everyone else... on 14:18 - Sep 25 with 2160 views | DJack |
Any comments on the fact that even the oil companies were aware of man made climate change? | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| One for anyone and everyone else... on 15:02 - Sep 25 with 2142 views | A_Fans_Dad |
Very emotive language.
"the fossil fuel suppliers have been wilfully destroying the planet just to make a few extra bucks."
But total crap, you do realise that none of the current essentials and niceties that you and most of the rest of the world enjoy would be totally impossible without those fossil fuels?
No transport, no heating, no lighting, no where near as much food and not as fresh.
No concrete, no iron, steel aluminium, no plastic, no electronics.
So if you want to go back to pre-indistrial living be my guest, but most of the rest of us enjoy what we have. | | | |
| One for anyone and everyone else... on 15:09 - Sep 25 with 2136 views | A_Fans_Dad |
What you actually mean is that they were aware that the same scientists, who a decade before were talking "ice age" switched to "Global Warming".
Yes of course they were, wasn't everybody after Hansen's trick presentation in 1988? | | | |
| One for anyone and everyone else... on 16:17 - Sep 25 with 2123 views | DJack |
Nope read the article again. | |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| One for anyone and everyone else... on 17:45 - Sep 25 with 2099 views | A_Fans_Dad |
Like I have already said it is the same old rubbish regurgitated from the previous NYC Law Suit which they lost.
Talk of a "programmer" from 40 years ago writing a program to model the Climate is laughable, they can't even do it today, although the Russians have got a bit closer to reality than the rest.
CAGW is not a fact, it is not even classed as a theory, it is classed as a hypothesis. | | | |
| One for anyone and everyone else... on 18:08 - Sep 25 with 2077 views | Humpty |
Not true, unsurprisingly. It's something you see deniers use a lot, either through ignorance or duplicity.
Yes there where some scientists in the seventies that predicted global cooling but there was never scientific consensus on the subject, unlike the overwhelming scientific consensus that the planet is warming now and man is a major reason fore that.
https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
Summary
So global cooling predictions in the 70s amounted to media and a handful of peer reviewed studies. The small number of papers predicting cooling were outweighed by a much greater number of papers predicting global warming due to the warming effect of rising CO2. Today, an avalanche of peer reviewed studies and overwhelming scientific consensus endorse man-made global warming. To compare cooling predictions in the 70s to the current situation is both inappropriate and misleading. Additionally, we reduced the SO2 emissions which were causing global cooling. The question remains whether we will reduce the CO2 emissions causing global warming. | | | |
| One for anyone and everyone else... on 19:24 - Sep 25 with 2060 views | A_Fans_Dad |
Do not quote John Cook at me, it is an absolute insult.
The guy is not a Climate Scientist, he is Psychologist hired to fight against Climate Change Sceptics.
His "concensus" paper has been totally shredded many times, especially the 97% part.
Science is not conducted by "consensus", but even if it was you seem to think that there are no dissenting voices today and you couldn't be more wrong.
There is not even consensus at NASA and there was never consensus at the IPCC, in fact many of the lead authors stopped supplying the IPCC because their actual data was ignored and spin put on it to meet the political message.
Even the CIA believed in Global Cooling in 1974.
http://omnologos.com/2009/12/03/world-exclusive-cia-1974-document-reveals-emptin
But of course my data comes from "deniers" so it can't possibly correct can it?
As you believe that CO2 is the control knob for global warming, what caused the warming between 2014 and 2017?
Alternatively what caused the haitus between 1998 and 2013?
Or what caused the warming from 1979 on?
Now don't forget I am going to be using Study Papers by "Scientists". | | | |
| One for anyone and everyone else... on 23:14 - Sep 25 with 2024 views | Catullus |
None of the the current essentials......would be totally impossible, really? How do you know what the world would be like? We would find a way. Face it, we used to use sailing ships and horses and carts, bicycles too. People walked a lot more.
I'm so glad you don't mind wrecking the planet just so you can enjoy what you have.
If we could never manage without oil then how come humankind is here at all? We surely didn't get by for thousands of years without it? | |
| |
| One for anyone and everyone else... on 10:30 - Sep 26 with 1994 views | A_Fans_Dad |
The planet is not being destroyed, you are unbelievably dramatic, a veritable drama queen, just like my great nephew.
Modern society would collapse without fossil fuels, you can't feed 7 billion people with the same facilities that supplied 1 billion.
But you are OK with that, you really want to see us living under pre industrial conditions and remove a large portion of the world population.
Enough said, discussion is pointless. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
