They wouldn't promote a 26 year old as they couldn't accuse people of attacking a child when they question her facts, motives, agenda or her solutions.
Greta Thunberg
- Thread starter rubberduck
- Start date
They wouldn't promote a 26 year old as they couldn't accuse people of attacking a child when they question her facts, motives, agenda or her solutions.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2019
- Posts
- 747
The kick back to those figures is that global temperatures have only been measured since 1880 and there has been a near perfect linear line of a 1 degree increase since then. There was a dip from 1880-1910, spike in in 1940 which then drops until 1950 then picks up again. It's been assessed that el Nino and la Nina plays a huge part in spikes, troughs and record hot day measurements (the hottest day on record was actually in 1922.similarly the coldest days on record were recorded in the 70s
Despite what the lobby claims there is not a scientific community census claiming this is because of greenhouse gasses. It's still fiercely debated and all models are only based on the 1880- measurements. The only agreed fact is there has been an overall increase of 1 degree over 150 years.
By flat earthers and oil companies maybe.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/global-extent-of-climate-change-is-unparalleled-in-past-2000-years
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2019
- Posts
- 747
By flat earthers and oil companies maybe.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/global-extent-of-climate-change-is-unparalleled-in-past-2000-years
Thats a model, since the Romans haven't left records of how they measured overall global temps. The only stats available are from1850 at the earliest and from 1880 where they were standardised. Mind you I do love the cute thick black line they have used to show the instrumental recording.
Despite what you personally believe, and what other academics have predicted, there are other analysts who claim the warming is naturally occuring due to things like volcanic activity, increased solar rays, these views are more common than the lobby wants you to believe.
My opinion? I don't know and won't be claiming anything either way as I'm not an expert. The sensible path is to rapidly deindustrialize as quickly as possible through technology as pollution is obvious and you can't remove mass quantities of carbon from the ground and pump it into the air without upsetting something ecologically. But the climate change lobby has not been helped by years of hysterical doomsday predictions that have failed to materialise. It's only been 13 years since an inconvenient truth and majority of those predictions were way off.
Whilst I agree with the sentiment, the most recent articles I was reading suggest China is now increasing their emissions yet again. Partly due to a focus on "new energy" such as fracking, etc, and reduced subsidies for renewables, along with problems with their grid, they are now uncertain if they will peak/plateau before 2030.
But even when presented with the research you can’t seem to grasp it, instead choosing to believe the small minority... the ones funded by oil companies??
https://thebulletin.org/2019/08/mil...percent-climate-consensus-still-faces-denial/
Or as one physicist put it recently:
"What happens when you charge the atmosphere with energy? Climate change."
The vulcanic and solar inputs you mention also fit his description.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 May 2007
- Posts
- 9,084
- Location
- Surrey
It's even easier to be ignorant.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2019
- Posts
- 747
Are you touched? Where have I said that I believe a minority? I quite clearly said I have no opinions what is fact and what is fiction. And quite frankly I don't need to.
Posting multiple links wont change this. More importantly why is it so important for someone like you to get someone like me, a layman who works in the legal industry, to declare my devotion to the climate change lobby? If and when I gain a position of influence on a governmental body dictating environmental policy, then I will start to study the subject in fine detail. In the meantime I'll leave it to boffins to debate and will wear whatever restrictions are put on us by the powers that be.
I’m really touched yeah. You have said you believe in the minority by arguing against the majority...
Those links are evidence for my viewpoint, I doubt you have read them though.
I think you'll find it takes a lot to drown out the screeching from the plebs.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2019
- Posts
- 747
Ok apply the critical thinking part of your brain here. Again I have not said I believe in the climate sceptic viewpoint. If what you are saying is that nobody is allowed to even consider a minority viewpoint then please do not go into any of the sciences or a profession that requires critical analysis.
I don't need to review your links or sources as I am already aware of what they say. 140 years of data that has been interpreted to say that CO2 emmisions have caused the 1 degree increase in a global temperatures since 1880 as they believe there has been a disproportionate rise since 1950. Is there anything to add?
You are arguing against it being caused by humans, you are coming across like a skeptic.. I think its you who needs some critical thinking lessons.
You are aware of what the links say, what the evidence says but you argue against it... seems quite clear to me anyway.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2019
- Posts
- 747
I clearly stated in my original post what the counter argument position was according to those making it, I made no such claim to that argument myself. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this.
Your "feels" may lead you to believe I am a sceptic, but in reality what your replies actually do is illustrate the maniacal and fanatical nature of believers of man-made climate change who refuse to allow anyone to remain neutral or who chastise anyone who refuses to claim a side through lack of expertise.
I'm agnostic as to if the changes are natural or heavily contributed towards by all our shenanigans, but I think we can all agree that the whole world should be looking at reducing all the crap we are pulling.
If you believe that climate change is natural, so lets keep dumping plastics in the sea and poisons in the air, then you are a bit of a ****.
If you believe that climate change is natural, so lets keep dumping plastics in the sea and poisons in the air, then you are a bit of a ****.
Oh right, so you are just posting the skeptic viewpoint... but dont believe it yourself as you dont have any opinions on the matter.. Its not about claiming a side its about looking at the evidence in front of you, something which you seem unwilling or unable to comprehend.
He's done nothing of the sort, he clearly stated he was agnostic to the situation and that there's two sides to the story. One may well be right over the other, but you can't just blindly ignore what people have to say because it doesn't fit what you want to hear. You're literally arguing against critical thought.
You're doing nothing for your cause by acting in the way you are, either your reading comprehension is absolutely deplorable or you're just looking to start an argument where there wasn't one.
His post claimed there was no consensus climate change was caused by greenhouse gases, that sounds like the skeptics argument to me.