Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Hurricanes
http://
I could have chosen any one of a number of clips that are on the BBC website this morning. According the BBC weather chappie, just before 07:00, there is a third hurricane on its way !
Climate change deniers like Trump, need to have a good long look at themselves.
I could have chosen any one of a number of clips that are on the BBC website this morning. According the BBC weather chappie, just before 07:00, there is a third hurricane on its way !
Climate change deniers like Trump, need to have a good long look at themselves.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Worth a read Jim. You will understand the equations as well. :))
https:/
https:/
Global warming/climate change/dangerous climate change/man-made climate change will pass just as quickly as the last ice-age, you know, the one predicted all through my school years and early adulthood.
The profligate slackers running the place just need to have a new tax raising scheme in place and ready to go before the errors in the data are 'discovered'.
The profligate slackers running the place just need to have a new tax raising scheme in place and ready to go before the errors in the data are 'discovered'.
The "Global Warming" warning put out by a few, single issue lobbyists has been seized by people who seek to gain control over the rest of us as a simple explanation for simple people. The "carbon emissions is the sole driver of climate change" guff is easily understood by non qualified, and easily persuaded buffoons who have a proclivity to hysteria. Just wait till the next big volcanic eruption accompanied by............ yep carbon emissions and a mini ice age.
" It’s arrogant to think that man can combat nature."
Not arrogant, realistic. We've done a pretty good job so far, no? What with wholesale destruction of forests, all the species we've brought to extinction or to dangerously low population numbers, moving animals about to places they'd never have been, wreaking havoc in their new environments, and so on and so forth.
Oh, and a decent contribution to recent warming trends, which -- it should be noted -- even the arXiv link above appears to acknowledge:
"The global temperature change since the period 1850-1900 is about 0.70 C. Subtracting 0.3 C, the average of the two values found above as being due to increased solar activity, leaves 0.4 C as resulting from the increase in carbon dioxide concentration."
So that's a paper linked as an attempt to dismiss the effect of humans in driving temperature changes still giving us credit for about 50% of the last century's or so.
Not arrogant, realistic. We've done a pretty good job so far, no? What with wholesale destruction of forests, all the species we've brought to extinction or to dangerously low population numbers, moving animals about to places they'd never have been, wreaking havoc in their new environments, and so on and so forth.
Oh, and a decent contribution to recent warming trends, which -- it should be noted -- even the arXiv link above appears to acknowledge:
"The global temperature change since the period 1850-1900 is about 0.70 C. Subtracting 0.3 C, the average of the two values found above as being due to increased solar activity, leaves 0.4 C as resulting from the increase in carbon dioxide concentration."
So that's a paper linked as an attempt to dismiss the effect of humans in driving temperature changes still giving us credit for about 50% of the last century's or so.
"The climate change wagon is a big money spinner."
It's clearly pointless to deny that money will play a part in motivating people's interests, but what bothers me about this argument is that it only seems to attack one side. What do you think Oil companies are, if not "big money spinners"? And some of those have been the most active in trying to destroy the Climate Change argument, to the point of falsifying data and trying to influence scientific research for decades, eg as revealed in a recent story (the link I'll try to dig up asap).
The interests against Anthropogenic Global Warming being a thing are as powerful, if not more so, and yet some seem determined to trust them unconditionally, or at least seem to be unconcerned that maybe they, too, are subject to the same weaknesses.
But the science is, at this point, pretty clear: no matter where you turn, there's not a credible source at this point that would argue that human activity has been responsible (in part or in whole) for recent temperature changes. Not even Togo's link does that.
It's clearly pointless to deny that money will play a part in motivating people's interests, but what bothers me about this argument is that it only seems to attack one side. What do you think Oil companies are, if not "big money spinners"? And some of those have been the most active in trying to destroy the Climate Change argument, to the point of falsifying data and trying to influence scientific research for decades, eg as revealed in a recent story (the link I'll try to dig up asap).
The interests against Anthropogenic Global Warming being a thing are as powerful, if not more so, and yet some seem determined to trust them unconditionally, or at least seem to be unconcerned that maybe they, too, are subject to the same weaknesses.
But the science is, at this point, pretty clear: no matter where you turn, there's not a credible source at this point that would argue that human activity has been responsible (in part or in whole) for recent temperature changes. Not even Togo's link does that.
Jim, naughty naughty. The link does not "attempt to dismiss the effects of humans" in the climate change phenomenon. It does however point out that there are other, much more powerful forces that have been causing such changes that are neither being considered by the glib carbon emissions chancers. It even points out that carbon emissions in some circumstances have been beneficial to the warming of Earth and may even be necessary in the future if certain conditions or events prevail.
Such an assertion is without foundation and flies in the face of the evidence.
Of course, in the absolute long-term natural forces dominate, but we aren't interested in what will happen in a million years, so it's a confusion of timescales. Species go extinct, the earth warms and cools, but it's a mistake to look at the world as it was 250 million years ago and not notice that this was, to all intents and purposes, the same as it was 249 million years ago or 251 million years ago. We're talking about effects on the scale of decades, and there human activity certainly *can* make a difference, and it certainly has. And, if we can change the world by accident, then we certainly can have a hope of changing it on purpose.
Of course, in the absolute long-term natural forces dominate, but we aren't interested in what will happen in a million years, so it's a confusion of timescales. Species go extinct, the earth warms and cools, but it's a mistake to look at the world as it was 250 million years ago and not notice that this was, to all intents and purposes, the same as it was 249 million years ago or 251 million years ago. We're talking about effects on the scale of decades, and there human activity certainly *can* make a difference, and it certainly has. And, if we can change the world by accident, then we certainly can have a hope of changing it on purpose.
//Exxon called the report "inaccurate and preposterous," saying it was paid for and written by activists.//
In your first link Jim.The report criticising Exxon for "false data" was written by...................tada. The "Carbon Emissions" disaster movie script writers.
//ExxonMobil has responded stating, ‘We unequivocally
reject allegations that ExxonMobil suppressed
climate change research contained in media reports
that are inaccurate distortions of ExxonMobil’s nearly
40 year history of climate research//
In the pdf.
In your first link Jim.The report criticising Exxon for "false data" was written by...................tada. The "Carbon Emissions" disaster movie script writers.
//ExxonMobil has responded stating, ‘We unequivocally
reject allegations that ExxonMobil suppressed
climate change research contained in media reports
that are inaccurate distortions of ExxonMobil’s nearly
40 year history of climate research//
In the pdf.
Latest Posts
Christmas In The Good Old Days
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles25 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles32 mins ago
Festive Dingbats 2024 C/D 6Th Jan
Quizzes & Puzzles107 mins ago
