By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
All forms of energy generation come with a cost, and have downsides, but only an ignorant or disingenous person would argue that wind or tidal power has a bigger impact that coal or gas.
As for hydrogen power, well you'd better get on the blower and inform those stupid Dutch people about the hitherto unknown explosive dangers of hydrogen. Whilst you're at it, send out an alert to all those idiots out in the UK using highly explosive natural gas as a source of heating and cooking.
I'm trying to understand your views on this thread you started. Are you stating that global warming is a phallacy? or, do you agree that global warming is actually occurring,not due to man, but to a naturally occurring process?
Deforestation in Indonesia is mostly to grow palm oil. This is a "green" initiative by the EU. 2/3rds of that oil is used for electrical generation and biodiesel. See the graph at bottom of the article below, the EU madness of destroying the world now to possibly save the world in the future.
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 21:55 - Dec 9 by Catullus
Don't apologise, you're right. Unless people buy into it, it can never succeed.
Part of the problem was when scientists got caught 'adjusting' data, was it the East Anglia Uni bods? People started to think it was just more BS so they could raise taxes or keep their funding, possibly both.
Global warning isn't in question but it's a naturally occuring cycle but all the pollution, environmental destruction, that is real, it's evidenced and it's getting worse.
Saying that the destruction of the Amazon is to feed people is glossing over the problems it causes. The plastics pollution isn't just in the seas and oceans, it's in the food chain too. We are destroying coral reefs, depleting fish stocks and even the drive towards electric cars isn't the great saviour some say it is, it comes with problems too.
Thing is, this won't affect me so much because I'll be lucky if I'm still here in 20 years but my son is 11. It's his future.
"when scientists got caught 'adjusting' data".
WRONG. They adjusted the data, they didn't "adjust" the data. They weren't "caught", they were "smeared".
"Global warning isn't in question but it's a naturally occurring cycle."
HALF-WRONG. Yes, it occurs in cycles. However, on this occasion it's almost exclusively man-made. That has been sufficiently proven that it no longer even needs debating.
I herewith deduct one mark from the Big C for the lazy smear, and add one mark as it's Christmas.
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 19:36 - Dec 12 by Glyn1
"when scientists got caught 'adjusting' data".
WRONG. They adjusted the data, they didn't "adjust" the data. They weren't "caught", they were "smeared".
"Global warning isn't in question but it's a naturally occurring cycle."
HALF-WRONG. Yes, it occurs in cycles. However, on this occasion it's almost exclusively man-made. That has been sufficiently proven that it no longer even needs debating.
I herewith deduct one mark from the Big C for the lazy smear, and add one mark as it's Christmas.
"WRONG. They adjusted the data, they didn't "adjust" the data. They weren't "caught", they were "smeared". "
Thery are still "adjusting" the data, especially the land surface temperatures, the sea surface temperatures and sea levels. None more so than the Australian BOM with their Land Surface temperatures. You just carry on believing them, as the old saying goes "ignorance is bliss".
0
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 15:25 - Dec 13 with 1913 views
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 19:36 - Dec 12 by Glyn1
"when scientists got caught 'adjusting' data".
WRONG. They adjusted the data, they didn't "adjust" the data. They weren't "caught", they were "smeared".
"Global warning isn't in question but it's a naturally occurring cycle."
HALF-WRONG. Yes, it occurs in cycles. However, on this occasion it's almost exclusively man-made. That has been sufficiently proven that it no longer even needs debating.
I herewith deduct one mark from the Big C for the lazy smear, and add one mark as it's Christmas.
What nonsense, how can something that occurs naturally be almost exclusively man made? It goes on all the time and we are adding to the effect not almost exclusively causing it.
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 15:25 - Dec 13 by Catullus
What nonsense, how can something that occurs naturally be almost exclusively man made? It goes on all the time and we are adding to the effect not almost exclusively causing it.
So the ice is melting AND CO2 was a problem before mankind appeared.
The Independent article explains it. If you read it.
“To some degree, we think that ancient ocean acidification events are good analogues for what’s happening now with anthropogenic CO2 emissions,” Professor Jacobson said.
Of course, it's a problem when the previous conditions were completely unhabitable for humans.
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 15:25 - Dec 13 by Catullus
What nonsense, how can something that occurs naturally be almost exclusively man made? It goes on all the time and we are adding to the effect not almost exclusively causing it.
Not only that but they have just found 3000 year old tree stumps appearing from under a glacier in Iceland clearly showing that it was far warmer before 3000 years ago and there was no run away warming, instead it got colder and there was a lot more ice formed since. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070705153019.htm
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 16:09 - Dec 13 by Drizzy
The Independent article explains it. If you read it.
“To some degree, we think that ancient ocean acidification events are good analogues for what’s happening now with anthropogenic CO2 emissions,” Professor Jacobson said.
Of course, it's a problem when the previous conditions were completely unhabitable for humans.
Why do you say that "the the previous conditions were completely unhabitable for humans. "?
The level of CO2 at the start of the Cretaceous was over 2000ppm not 400ppm we have now and global temperatures were about 22C compared to Africa at 35C when humans eveolved.
The Cambrian period saw levels in excess of 7000ppm and no runaway warming, in fact at the end of the Ordovician period with 4000ppm there was an Ice Age.
Not only that but they have just found 3000 year old tree stumps appearing from under a glacier in Iceland clearly showing that it was far warmer before 3000 years ago and there was no run away warming, instead it got colder and there was a lot more ice formed since. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070705153019.htm
Climate extremists don't do history before the cold period of the 1970s.
The first link, "notrickszone" is a website that pulls random graphs from studies in the 1950s. Some of them can't even be attributed to any specific text.
There's no author on the sciencedaily link and it proves nothing other than evidence for natural climactic variation. Of course, none of this historical variation has ever been accelerated by anthropogenic influence. Most people with common sense can see that.
In the spiegel link:
"Joerin is quick to explain that he is not trying to explain away the effects of man-made warming of the past few years: "Our findings so far could also be seen as giving the exact opposite of a climatic all-clear," he says. "If we can prove that there were ancient forests where the glaciers are today, it means one thing in particular: that the climate can change more suddenly than we thought."
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 16:53 - Dec 13 by A_Fans_Dad
Why do you say that "the the previous conditions were completely unhabitable for humans. "?
The level of CO2 at the start of the Cretaceous was over 2000ppm not 400ppm we have now and global temperatures were about 22C compared to Africa at 35C when humans eveolved.
The Cambrian period saw levels in excess of 7000ppm and no runaway warming, in fact at the end of the Ordovician period with 4000ppm there was an Ice Age.
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 17:06 - Dec 13 by Drizzy
The first link, "notrickszone" is a website that pulls random graphs from studies in the 1950s. Some of them can't even be attributed to any specific text.
There's no author on the sciencedaily link and it proves nothing other than evidence for natural climactic variation. Of course, none of this historical variation has ever been accelerated by anthropogenic influence. Most people with common sense can see that.
In the spiegel link:
"Joerin is quick to explain that he is not trying to explain away the effects of man-made warming of the past few years: "Our findings so far could also be seen as giving the exact opposite of a climatic all-clear," he says. "If we can prove that there were ancient forests where the glaciers are today, it means one thing in particular: that the climate can change more suddenly than we thought."
You're a total charlatan.
I see, so the fact that they have found the remains of trees under the Glaciers all over the world is not true because of who published the data. OK.
0
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 18:07 - Dec 13 with 1831 views
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 16:53 - Dec 13 by A_Fans_Dad
Why do you say that "the the previous conditions were completely unhabitable for humans. "?
The level of CO2 at the start of the Cretaceous was over 2000ppm not 400ppm we have now and global temperatures were about 22C compared to Africa at 35C when humans eveolved.
The Cambrian period saw levels in excess of 7000ppm and no runaway warming, in fact at the end of the Ordovician period with 4000ppm there was an Ice Age.
[Post edited 13 Dec 2019 16:54]
‘Why do you say that "the the previous conditions were completely unhabitable for humans. "?
The level of CO2 at the start of the Cretaceous was over 2000ppm not 400ppm we have now and global temperatures were about 22C compared to Africa at 35C when humans eveolved. ’
Sorry, but I don’t understand this. Are you saying that you think humans were around during the Cretaceous period? Those dinosaurs must have given them a fright ...
0
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 18:08 - Dec 13 with 1830 views
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 18:08 - Dec 13 by londonlisa2001
How long do you think humans have been around for?
What difference does it make how long humans have been around when natural cycles dwarf current conditions? But for your information about 3 million years.
0
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 18:19 - Dec 13 with 1817 views
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 18:12 - Dec 13 by A_Fans_Dad
What difference does it make how long humans have been around when natural cycles dwarf current conditions? But for your information about 3 million years.
Because the question re climate change is not whether the Earth can survive it, but whether humans can. Surely.
So talking about climate 150m years ago is completely irrelevant.
2
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 18:20 - Dec 13 with 1816 views
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 18:20 - Dec 13 by Drizzy
You're happy to believe a blog post where someone makes a chart of atmospheric CO2 data from 500 million years ago.
Total fruitcake.
Not just him that is an accepted representation of the Geologic earth, like I said try googling historic atmospheric CO2 levels to get you past the Vostok ice core data, which by the way does not show the temperatures that lead the CO2 by at least 800 years. http://climateilluminated.com/history/slides/4_Vostok_data.html
0
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 18:54 - Dec 13 with 1793 views
So the average global temperature is currently <16C and without clothing and heating we would die in most northern and southern latitudes. And the world is calling it a climate emergency if the temperature gets up to 17C. And you believe it?
Are you aware that most of the increase in average global temperature is in minimum (night time) temperatures and isn't that a good thing?
[Post edited 13 Dec 2019 18:57]
0
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 19:43 - Dec 13 with 1766 views
So the average global temperature is currently <16C and without clothing and heating we would die in most northern and southern latitudes. And the world is calling it a climate emergency if the temperature gets up to 17C. And you believe it?
Are you aware that most of the increase in average global temperature is in minimum (night time) temperatures and isn't that a good thing?
[Post edited 13 Dec 2019 18:57]
That's interesting! So, it's not really an average temp then.
0
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 20:53 - Dec 13 with 1737 views
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 19:43 - Dec 13 by controversial_jack
That's interesting! So, it's not really an average temp then.
The average as they call it is based on the old max/min thermometers. They recorded the max during the day & the min during the night. They added them up and divided by 2 to get a sort of average, which when you think about it is nonsense. It could be hot for 5 hours medium for 18 hours and cold for an hour depending on cloud cover etc. They do record all three so that we can work out the max & min trends as well as the average. But climate scientists do not present those results to the public, just average. This will give you an idea https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235227477_Maximum_and_Minimum_Temperatu
They also do not present the data as temperatures, but anomalies from the base line period that they set. They also create the scientific cardinal sin of combining air temperatures which change very quickly and sea surface temperatures (also adjusted) which change very slowly. But it is OK they are "scientists".
They do a lot of adjustments and extrapolation to actually get a global average because there are massive areas of the earth with no readings at all. It is also interesting that they do not use all the thermometers that they could. They also do a lot of infilling of data with "estimates" (ie make it up).
[Post edited 13 Dec 2019 20:55]
0
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 20:57 - Dec 13 with 1734 views
Not only that but they have just found 3000 year old tree stumps appearing from under a glacier in Iceland clearly showing that it was far warmer before 3000 years ago and there was no run away warming, instead it got colder and there was a lot more ice formed since. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070705153019.htm
Climate extremists don't do history before the cold period of the 1970s.
I know which is why I've said warming is part of a natural cycle. I also said we are adding to the warming, in so doing making it worse, happen ore quickly.
The seas will rise again and coastlines will be badly hit, it's our own fault for building cities right on the coast. Mumbles seafront will be under water one day., Singleton hospital will have the tide lapping at its doors..
At 1.8mm per year it is going to take quite a while. I think that you will find it will change again before then, just think of how much snow there has been in the northern hemisphere over the last 3 years, the mountain snow packs are melting less quickly now and the Great Lakes are full.
0
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 21:19 - Dec 13 with 1716 views
This one is for any bed wetting Climate Emergency believers. on 21:04 - Dec 13 by A_Fans_Dad
At 1.8mm per year it is going to take quite a while. I think that you will find it will change again before then, just think of how much snow there has been in the northern hemisphere over the last 3 years, the mountain snow packs are melting less quickly now and the Great Lakes are full.
They deliberately truncate history so as to not show the much higher values millions of years ago.
Yes, and when you look at those graphs, such as the one you link to showing elevated CO2 in the early Cambrian, you also need to realise that global sea-levels at that time we’re some 300m-400m above where they are now.
We’d be having beach parties half way up Black Mountain.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
