How Long Would You Leave Curry At Room...
Food & Drink1 min ago
What Can Be Done About Climate Change
is it a natural occurrence, after all the climate has changed over billions of years - is this really what we will come to.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Kromo; //It's hard to do anything that's carbon-
11:15 Tue 04th Dec 2018
How does consensus arise in science? It's because multiple people study the subject and reach conclusions that agree with each other, that fit to data, and that correct earlier mistakes. It doesn't happen because everyone nods along and says "yeah, sure, whatever". All along the way, there is a critical evaluation of what came before, and constant cross-checking.
That's what active research means, and that's how the consensus about the human contribution to modern climate trends has arisen.
That's what active research means, and that's how the consensus about the human contribution to modern climate trends has arisen.
//If everybody did we'd say the Sun had been going around you for 70.91 years.//
They would be wrong Spice. However it has been shining out of my nether regions for, surprisingly, the same amount of time. (^_*)
When the Supranational quangos and Guvvermeants can invent a way of taxing us for the amount of sunshine or radiation that shines on us they will adopt it as readily as they did the "carbon imprint" model that they so eagerly endorsed. A sort of modern day window tax.
They would be wrong Spice. However it has been shining out of my nether regions for, surprisingly, the same amount of time. (^_*)
When the Supranational quangos and Guvvermeants can invent a way of taxing us for the amount of sunshine or radiation that shines on us they will adopt it as readily as they did the "carbon imprint" model that they so eagerly endorsed. A sort of modern day window tax.
In absolute terms, China contributes around 28% of global carbon dioxide emissions; US around 15%
https:/
In terms of emissions per capita, Curacao is highest (37.7 ton/capita). China at 7.5; US at 16.5; UK at 6.5.
https:/
I support Jim. The climate change deniers assert their view of the situation, but do nothing to counter this kind or evidence:
https:/
or this:
https:/
or this:
https:/
(note esecially the gradient of the most recent warming period since 1950; it is much steeper than any other period in history.
https:/
In terms of emissions per capita, Curacao is highest (37.7 ton/capita). China at 7.5; US at 16.5; UK at 6.5.
https:/
I support Jim. The climate change deniers assert their view of the situation, but do nothing to counter this kind or evidence:
https:/
or this:
https:/
or this:
https:/
(note esecially the gradient of the most recent warming period since 1950; it is much steeper than any other period in history.
jim, i think some are winding you up. Surely they can't really be that ignorant. I used to be a climate change sceptic but the head in the sand attitude of those in denial and the growing consensus of those who know more than we do made me change my outlook a little on this topic. Maybe time to take a break, jim, I suggest.
//In terms of emissions per capita, Curacao is highest (37.7 ton/capita) China at 7.5; US at 16.5; UK at 6.5. //
Curacao population,161,000 (2017)
China population, 1.386 billion (2017)
United States, 325.7 million (2017)
United Kingdom, 66.02 million (2017)
Now if we have a resident mathmetician who can tell me that I am wrong, I would speculate that the people of Curacao are producing significantly less CO2 than China....... and that China is producing a damn sight more than the other 3 examples combined. Never trust a set of "statistics" that have been produced to prove a point that is supposed to be a given fact. You will always (if you live long enough) be proved to be gullible. Per capita. Meehh. No info about where or how the dreaded CO2 emitted by Curacao( can't believe I have to type that) comes from either. Do 161,000 people threaten the world as we know it Jim? Bomb The ***.
Curacao population,161,000 (2017)
China population, 1.386 billion (2017)
United States, 325.7 million (2017)
United Kingdom, 66.02 million (2017)
Now if we have a resident mathmetician who can tell me that I am wrong, I would speculate that the people of Curacao are producing significantly less CO2 than China....... and that China is producing a damn sight more than the other 3 examples combined. Never trust a set of "statistics" that have been produced to prove a point that is supposed to be a given fact. You will always (if you live long enough) be proved to be gullible. Per capita. Meehh. No info about where or how the dreaded CO2 emitted by Curacao( can't believe I have to type that) comes from either. Do 161,000 people threaten the world as we know it Jim? Bomb The ***.
I’m not trying to wind Jim up, f-f.
My point of view is that here in the UK we are going to ridiculous (and futile) lengths to curb “emissions” in some respects whilst, on the other hand, massaging calculations to falsely demonstrate our credentials. (I’m thinking particularly of the calculations used to show felling trees and processing them into “biomass” is somehow less toxic than burning coal). And we’re doing all this – at enormous cost and inconvenience to consumers - to reduce the 1% of emissions for which we are responsible.
I don’t doubt the Earth is warming – as it has done in the past. I’m fairly sure that man’s activities have made some contribution to that. But the hysterical ramblings of Mr Attenborough earlier this week simply leave me cold (no pun intended). His talk of the “end of civilisation” and the mass extermination of species simply reminds me of the countless other scares I have endured in my lifetime promulgated by experts. None of them have resulted in Armageddon of the type forecast by Mr A; all of the experts involved were absolutely convinced their scenarios and forecast were correct; all of them were wrong. This will be no different.
Everybody is entitled to their opinion but nobody is entitled to force that opinion – however sincerely held – on gullible governments who have the power to balls up people’s lives.
My point of view is that here in the UK we are going to ridiculous (and futile) lengths to curb “emissions” in some respects whilst, on the other hand, massaging calculations to falsely demonstrate our credentials. (I’m thinking particularly of the calculations used to show felling trees and processing them into “biomass” is somehow less toxic than burning coal). And we’re doing all this – at enormous cost and inconvenience to consumers - to reduce the 1% of emissions for which we are responsible.
I don’t doubt the Earth is warming – as it has done in the past. I’m fairly sure that man’s activities have made some contribution to that. But the hysterical ramblings of Mr Attenborough earlier this week simply leave me cold (no pun intended). His talk of the “end of civilisation” and the mass extermination of species simply reminds me of the countless other scares I have endured in my lifetime promulgated by experts. None of them have resulted in Armageddon of the type forecast by Mr A; all of the experts involved were absolutely convinced their scenarios and forecast were correct; all of them were wrong. This will be no different.
Everybody is entitled to their opinion but nobody is entitled to force that opinion – however sincerely held – on gullible governments who have the power to balls up people’s lives.
// [Attenborough's] talk of the “end of civilisation” and the mass extermination of species simply reminds me of the countless other scares I have endured in my lifetime promulgated by experts. //
I'll address the last part in a separate post, although it probably repeats points I've made elsewhere already, but for the first, it's worth noting that (a) plenty of species have already been made extinct by human activity, and (b) Climate Change certainly *does* threaten, if not the end of civilisation, then certainly a hefty blow to it. Probably the single most devastating period for life on the planet is the "Permian Extinction", which is heavily suspected to have been driven by Climate Change (among other factors), and which accounted for something close to 90% of all known species at the time. Even a period climate change a fraction as bad would therefore be very harmful.
I tend to agree that the worst predictions are better interpreted as warnings to avoid rather than accurate visions of what is to come, but even then they are useful. You could drive off a cliff! But, of course, there's no danger, as long as you remembered to hit the brake. Sometimes, it's good to have fears that are unfounded.
I'll address the last part in a separate post, although it probably repeats points I've made elsewhere already, but for the first, it's worth noting that (a) plenty of species have already been made extinct by human activity, and (b) Climate Change certainly *does* threaten, if not the end of civilisation, then certainly a hefty blow to it. Probably the single most devastating period for life on the planet is the "Permian Extinction", which is heavily suspected to have been driven by Climate Change (among other factors), and which accounted for something close to 90% of all known species at the time. Even a period climate change a fraction as bad would therefore be very harmful.
I tend to agree that the worst predictions are better interpreted as warnings to avoid rather than accurate visions of what is to come, but even then they are useful. You could drive off a cliff! But, of course, there's no danger, as long as you remembered to hit the brake. Sometimes, it's good to have fears that are unfounded.
Well, perhaps I didn't mean "unfounded", exactly -- but it's nevertheless true that the opposite of fear is foolhardiness. There's a well-known cartoon, whereby the general benefits of the climate advocacy movement are listed: cleaner air and water supplies, less reliance on foreign oil imports, investment in renewable energies, and the like, and the question is asked "but what if it's all wrong and we're creating a better world for nothing?"
Like most political cartoons, it overstates the case, but not by much, and it's hard not to wonder why such change is resisted by so many.
Like most political cartoons, it overstates the case, but not by much, and it's hard not to wonder why such change is resisted by so many.
Possibly, vetuste. When I wake up tomorrow morning I might pontificate about the other point I was going to make, although the short summary is that Climate Science is really no different from other science from a purely scientific perspective. On the other hand, it receives more coverage and matters more to our personal lives, so it has to get wrapped up in politics.
jim360 // There's a well-known cartoon, whereby the general benefits of the climate advocacy movement are listed: cleaner air and water supplies, less reliance on foreign oil imports, investment in renewable energies, and the like, and the question is asked "but what if it's all wrong and we're creating a better world for nothing?"//
^^^^Supercilious New World Order (La la) Land.
^^^^Reality.
^^^^Supercilious New World Order (La la) Land.
^^^^Reality.
Togo
Your questins demonstrate how little you understand numbers.
I first gave data for the absolute emissions and China is the biggest offender, with 26% of emissions (and gave a source).
To put that data into perspective, I gave the output per capita to show that China emits slightly more per head than the UK, but a lot less (per head) than the US.
You then criticise the sources - a standard diversionary tactic.
You offer no suggestions as to why NASA or the UNion of Cncened Scientists might want to present false data.
Your atitude is simlar to that of the flat-earthers who continue to insist in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that the earth is flat.
Of curse, you are entitled to your opinion. The fact that your opinions are based on fantasies and an over-active imagination does not make them anything by wrong.
This is on a level with the BBC bringing on Nigel Lawson to provide balance against the scientists who have studied it and got the numbers, data and evidence to back up their views.
Lawson knows nothing, but the BBC gives his views validity by allowing him to make his assertions
Your opinions, like those of Nigel Lawson and Donald Trump, are completely and entirely in opposition to demonstrated facts.
I have nothing more to say to you.
Your questins demonstrate how little you understand numbers.
I first gave data for the absolute emissions and China is the biggest offender, with 26% of emissions (and gave a source).
To put that data into perspective, I gave the output per capita to show that China emits slightly more per head than the UK, but a lot less (per head) than the US.
You then criticise the sources - a standard diversionary tactic.
You offer no suggestions as to why NASA or the UNion of Cncened Scientists might want to present false data.
Your atitude is simlar to that of the flat-earthers who continue to insist in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that the earth is flat.
Of curse, you are entitled to your opinion. The fact that your opinions are based on fantasies and an over-active imagination does not make them anything by wrong.
This is on a level with the BBC bringing on Nigel Lawson to provide balance against the scientists who have studied it and got the numbers, data and evidence to back up their views.
Lawson knows nothing, but the BBC gives his views validity by allowing him to make his assertions
Your opinions, like those of Nigel Lawson and Donald Trump, are completely and entirely in opposition to demonstrated facts.
I have nothing more to say to you.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
ChatterBank14 mins ago
