Climate Change. Real or hoax?

in reality, all of this has been a total load of old bollocks

Do you believe the Al Gore climate change narrative?

No
2
9%
Somewhat
0
No votes
Entirely
21
91%
 
Total votes: 23

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 68497
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Diamond Dog » 01 Sep 2019, 13:24

Just ordered this, which will make Jimbo's piss boil.

Image
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything.
When I was a kid, I inhaled. Frequently. That was the point.

User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 16734
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Jimbo » 01 Sep 2019, 13:38

Scientists challenge magazine story about ‘uninhabitable Earth’

The article by David Wallace-Wells is entitled “The Uninhabitable Earth” and begins with the sentence, “It is, I promise, worse than you think.” ... Yet a number of scientific responses have been highly critical. :shock:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... edirect=on
... an essential element of this story being impossible, we cannot take seriously the other elements that are before us ... Thierry Meyssan

User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 16734
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Jimbo » 01 Sep 2019, 16:23

.
Last edited by Jimbo on 01 Sep 2019, 16:50, edited 1 time in total.
... an essential element of this story being impossible, we cannot take seriously the other elements that are before us ... Thierry Meyssan

Powehi
Posts: 1143
Joined: 25 Aug 2016, 17:12

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Powehi » 01 Sep 2019, 16:45

Jimbo wrote:
Powehi wrote: Big Energy-funded scientists who dispute global warming.


I'd like to see some verification of this. I know it is bantered about like common knowledge but I've heard otherwise, that the big oil companies have given far more money to environmental groups than to climate skeptics.



Powehi wrote:
Mike Boom wrote:
If humankind will does not stop what its doing it will be extinct within the next hundred years - so if we want to survive as a species doing nothing is not an option.



What Mike said.

Even those swayed by the very probably Big Energy-funded scientists who dispute global warming would have to be serious morons to argue against taking timely preventative measures to stop such problems happening in the future.


Nothing like a bit of selective editing to justify one's very probably crackpot theories

User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 16734
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Jimbo » 01 Sep 2019, 16:51

Yeah, I was wrong about that. While some big oil money went to environmental groups the Koch brothers gave loads to climate denying groups, especially the Republican party.
... an essential element of this story being impossible, we cannot take seriously the other elements that are before us ... Thierry Meyssan

User avatar
KeithPratt
Arsehole all Erect
Posts: 23730
Joined: 28 Jul 2003, 23:13
Contact:

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby KeithPratt » 01 Sep 2019, 20:26

Rupert Darwall's "The Age of Global Warming" is a worthwhile read for a perspective from "the other side" as it were.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/04/the ... are-story/

User avatar
Robert
Posts: 1207
Joined: 27 Dec 2013, 13:24

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Robert » 01 Sep 2019, 22:36

Toby wrote:Rupert Darwall's "The Age of Global Warming" is a worthwhile read for a perspective from "the other side" as it were.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/04/the ... are-story/


2013?

That’s practically the stone age in terms of Global Warming knowledge.

User avatar
Hepcat
Posts: 2424
Joined: 30 Aug 2010, 21:50
Location: Toronto

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Hepcat » 02 Sep 2019, 03:23

Robert wrote:
Hepcat wrote:
Robert wrote:
Excuse me but you're so thick that I automatically assumed you must be from Hicksville, USA.


So I guess I can add "painfully slow to grasp the obvious" to the list of your many and varied personal failings.

8-)


I’ll rest my case.


About time you gave it a decent burial then. Last Rites were read for it a few posts ago.

:P
Image

"That government governs best that governs least."

User avatar
Hepcat
Posts: 2424
Joined: 30 Aug 2010, 21:50
Location: Toronto

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Hepcat » 02 Sep 2019, 03:30

Robert wrote:
Toby wrote:Rupert Darwall's "The Age of Global Warming" is a worthwhile read for a perspective from "the other side" as it were.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/04/the ... are-story/


2013?

That’s practically the stone age in terms of Global Warming knowledge.


How old are you, sonny? Six years isn't a long time. The climate will still be changing six score and ten million years from now, and I'm sure somebody will still be complaining about it. That's the way things work.

;)
Image

"That government governs best that governs least."

User avatar
Hepcat
Posts: 2424
Joined: 30 Aug 2010, 21:50
Location: Toronto

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Hepcat » 02 Sep 2019, 03:38

Jimbo wrote:
Mike Boom wrote:The Great Barrier Reef - another victim of the "hoax"


Maybe so. This guy was fired from his uni job for speaking out. He debunks the Great Barrier Reef narrative in the beginning of the video and goes on to talk about his travails with the system for the rest.



Seems that those who toe the party line in academia are more equal than others when it comes to speaking their minds. In fact, it's only in university lecture halls that speakers unpopular with some are shouted down. Curious that, or maybe not....

:(
Image

"That government governs best that governs least."

User avatar
Hepcat
Posts: 2424
Joined: 30 Aug 2010, 21:50
Location: Toronto

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Hepcat » 02 Sep 2019, 04:13

Deebank wrote:If you trust global oil companies and their sponsored alt right mouthpieces over independent scientific Consensus then you are a useful idiot.


Nice try. But simply smearing those on the other side of the argument by referring to them as "mouthpieces" for other vested interests doesn't give your own argument any additional credibility. (See Sneelock's point that arguments may be valid despite the agenda of those making the arguments.)

And you also conveniently ignore the point that the scientists who derive funding from studying the impact of mankind's activities on climate have a vested financial interest in finding such a link. Otherwise there's no need to pay them to study it further. (In other words, sensationalist claims, e.g. "Mankind will be extinct in 100 years!" sell.) So these scientists are not exactly "independent" in every sense of the word.

And speaking of "independent", has it not occurred to you that the term more properly applies to those independent enough to challenge the "consensus"?

And may I remind you that without a healthy level of skepticism in general, you swiftly find yourself among this class of "useful idiots" to which you referred?

:?:
Image

"That government governs best that governs least."

User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 16734
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Jimbo » 02 Sep 2019, 07:41

Just thinking how often in history ultimately the minority opinion was right. (Russiagate?) There are good arguments from the skeptics' side which go unheeded by the believers. But use your own senses. Just go to any river. ocean beach, lake and see how much higher the water level is than from days gone by. If man made CO2 has been polluting the atmosphere since the 50s it hasn't had much of an effect. Any trouble breathing in the CO2 sodden air? Again, show me an island that's been covered by a rising ocean. I'm saying shit is normal and you're being brainwashed into believing it isn't.
... an essential element of this story being impossible, we cannot take seriously the other elements that are before us ... Thierry Meyssan

User avatar
Robert
Posts: 1207
Joined: 27 Dec 2013, 13:24

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Robert » 02 Sep 2019, 10:55

Hepcat wrote:
Deebank wrote:If you trust global oil companies and their sponsored alt right mouthpieces over independent scientific Consensus then you are a useful idiot.


Nice try. But simply smearing those on the other side of the argument by referring to them as "mouthpieces" for other vested interests doesn't give your own argument any additional credibility. (See Sneelock's point that arguments may be valid despite the agenda of those making the arguments.)

And you also conveniently ignore the point that the scientists who derive funding from studying the impact of mankind's activities on climate have a vested financial interest in finding such a link. Otherwise there's no need to pay them to study it further. (In other words, sensationalist claims, e.g. "Mankind will be extinct in 100 years!" sell.) So these scientists are not exactly "independent" in every sense of the word.

And speaking of "independent", has it not occurred to you that the term more properly applies to those independent enough to challenge the "consensus"?

And may I remind you that without a healthy level of skepticism in general, you swiftly find yourself among this class of "useful idiots" to which you referred?

:?:


And equally, with it in the company of Holocaust deniers, Flat earth scientists and Moon landing 'debunkers'

User avatar
Robert
Posts: 1207
Joined: 27 Dec 2013, 13:24

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Robert » 02 Sep 2019, 11:03

Hepcat wrote:
Deebank wrote:If you trust global oil companies and their sponsored alt right mouthpieces over independent scientific Consensus then you are a useful idiot.


Nice try. But simply smearing those on the other side of the argument by referring to them as "mouthpieces" for other vested interests doesn't give your own argument any additional credibility. (See Sneelock's point that arguments may be valid despite the agenda of those making the arguments.)

And you also conveniently ignore the point that the scientists who derive funding from studying the impact of mankind's activities on climate have a vested financial interest in finding such a link. Otherwise there's no need to pay them to study it further. (In other words, sensationalist claims, e.g. "Mankind will be extinct in 100 years!" sell.) So these scientists are not exactly "independent" in every sense of the word.

And speaking of "independent", has it not occurred to you that the term more properly applies to those independent enough to challenge the "consensus"?

And may I remind you that without a healthy level of skepticism in general, you swiftly find yourself among this class of "useful idiots" to which you referred?

:?:


You see, you are not challenging anything. Thousands of scientists agree about this but Hepcat from Hicksville, just says no, it is not so.
Well, that's them challenged, see how they'll respond to that!

User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 16734
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Jimbo » 02 Sep 2019, 11:44

Robert wrote: And equally, with it in the company of Holocaust deniers, Flat earth scientists and Moon landing 'debunkers'


Sorry, Bob, but this is just about the shittiest argument you can make. It's not an argument; it's just name calling. Please try harder.
... an essential element of this story being impossible, we cannot take seriously the other elements that are before us ... Thierry Meyssan

User avatar
Robert
Posts: 1207
Joined: 27 Dec 2013, 13:24

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Robert » 02 Sep 2019, 12:31

Jimbo wrote:
Robert wrote: And equally, with it in the company of Holocaust deniers, Flat earth scientists and Moon landing 'debunkers'


Sorry, Bob, but this is just about the shittiest argument you can make. It's not an argument; it's just name calling. Please try harder.


That's not name calling, merely pointing out what other groups are using the banner ' skepticism' (mistaking it for intelligence for not being fooled by The Man)

User avatar
Deebank
Resonator
Posts: 23770
Joined: 10 Oct 2003, 13:47
Location: In a beautiful place out in the country

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Deebank » 02 Sep 2019, 13:00

Jimbo wrote:Just thinking how often in history ultimately the minority opinion was right. (Russiagate?) There are good arguments from the skeptics' side which go unheeded by the believers. But use your own senses. Just go to any river. ocean beach, lake and see how much higher the water level is than from days gone by. If man made CO2 has been polluting the atmosphere since the 50s it hasn't had much of an effect. Any trouble breathing in the CO2 sodden air? Again, show me an island that's been covered by a rising ocean. I'm saying shit is normal and you're being brainwashed into believing it isn't.


You see, water levels are measurable and indeed are measured around the planet, so we know for a FACT that levels are rising. Spring tides are higher on average, flooding is getting more prevalent. These things are documented, recorded fact.
Just because your local duck pond isn't looking any fuller doesn't mean that on a worldwide scale this is not happening.
I've been talking about writing a book - 25 years of TEFL - for a few years now. I've got it in me.

Paid anghofio fod dy galon yn y chwyldro

User avatar
Deebank
Resonator
Posts: 23770
Joined: 10 Oct 2003, 13:47
Location: In a beautiful place out in the country

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Deebank » 02 Sep 2019, 13:10

Hepcat wrote:Nice try. But simply smearing those on the other side of the argument by referring to them as "mouthpieces" for other vested interests doesn't give your own argument any additional credibility. (See Sneelock's point that arguments may be valid despite the agenda of those making the arguments.)

And you also conveniently ignore the point that the scientists who derive funding from studying the impact of mankind's activities on climate have a vested financial interest in finding such a link. Otherwise there's no need to pay them to study it further. (In other words, sensationalist claims, e.g. "Mankind will be extinct in 100 years!" sell.) So these scientists are not exactly "independent" in every sense of the word.

And speaking of "independent", has it not occurred to you that the term more properly applies to those independent enough to challenge the "consensus"?

And may I remind you that without a healthy level of skepticism in general, you swiftly find yourself among this class of "useful idiots" to which you referred?

:?:


Cobblers! Scientists' receive research funding whether their findings discover massive human influence in global warming or none.
And those findings have to be published and peer reviewed.
You obviously don't understand how the scientific method works. The idea that a global cabal of climate scientists are making it all up so that they can continue to get paid their modest grants is just plain dim.
I've been talking about writing a book - 25 years of TEFL - for a few years now. I've got it in me.

Paid anghofio fod dy galon yn y chwyldro

User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 16734
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Jimbo » 02 Sep 2019, 14:53

Deebank wrote:You see, water levels are measurable and indeed are measured around the planet, so we know for a FACT that levels are rising. Spring tides are higher on average, flooding is getting more prevalent. These things are documented, recorded fact.
Just because your local duck pond isn't looking any fuller doesn't mean that on a worldwide scale this is not happening.


Yes, I'd heard about bigger spring tides in Carolina(?) and it is compelling evidence for your team but then looking for info on spring tides I came upon this Nat Geo article on "king tides" especially in California and waaaayyy back in 2014 the magazine doesn't blame climate change. About spring tides it says

Spring Tides

All tides happen due to the gravitational pull of the moon and, to a lesser extent, the sun. Because gravity is stronger at shorter distances, the moon exerts a greater gravitational pull on the side of the Earth that's closest to it. The oceans on the near side are pulled toward the moon more strongly compared to the oceans on the far side.


The article does mention climate change near the end and again in a speculative (guessing) mode says

Although king tides are natural and cyclical, the extra-high tides give a glimpse of the future when global warming causes sea levels to rise, Gill says.

"We expect that it's roughly equivalent to what a normal tide would look like under sea level rise in 50 years," says Sara Aminzadeh, executive director of the California Coastkeeper Alliance.


https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news ... e-science/

Fifty years? So sure about how much CO2 is in the atmosphere but not sure at all about when ...
... an essential element of this story being impossible, we cannot take seriously the other elements that are before us ... Thierry Meyssan

User avatar
Deebank
Resonator
Posts: 23770
Joined: 10 Oct 2003, 13:47
Location: In a beautiful place out in the country

Re: Climate Change. Real or hoax?

Postby Deebank » 02 Sep 2019, 15:30

Jimbo wrote:
Deebank wrote:You see, water levels are measurable and indeed are measured around the planet, so we know for a FACT that levels are rising. Spring tides are higher on average, flooding is getting more prevalent. These things are documented, recorded fact.
Just because your local duck pond isn't looking any fuller doesn't mean that on a worldwide scale this is not happening.


Yes, I'd heard about bigger spring tides in Carolina(?) and it is compelling evidence for your team but then looking for info on spring tides I came upon this Nat Geo article on "king tides" especially in California and waaaayyy back in 2014 the magazine doesn't blame climate change. About spring tides it says

Spring Tides

All tides happen due to the gravitational pull of the moon and, to a lesser extent, the sun. Because gravity is stronger at shorter distances, the moon exerts a greater gravitational pull on the side of the Earth that's closest to it. The oceans on the near side are pulled toward the moon more strongly compared to the oceans on the far side.


The article does mention climate change near the end and again in a speculative (guessing) mode says

Although king tides are natural and cyclical, the extra-high tides give a glimpse of the future when global warming causes sea levels to rise, Gill says.

"We expect that it's roughly equivalent to what a normal tide would look like under sea level rise in 50 years," says Sara Aminzadeh, executive director of the California Coastkeeper Alliance.


https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news ... e-science/

Fifty years? So sure about how much CO2 is in the atmosphere but not sure at all about when ...


Yes, spring tides are monthly high tides caused by gravitation, but when they coincide with things like storm surges they are causing more damage and these 'freak' occurances are happening more often because of the increasing amount of energy in the atmosphere - a direct result of global warming.

These things (the things that you are disputing J) are undisputed, what is disputed however is how much of this is caused by human activity.

The scientific consensus is that human activity is having an effect - and anyway the sensible course of action is to do everything possible to mitigate any possible human agency in global warming until we can prove it one way or the other, surely?
I've been talking about writing a book - 25 years of TEFL - for a few years now. I've got it in me.

Paid anghofio fod dy galon yn y chwyldro