Who Told Vorderman People Care What She...
News2 mins ago
Greta
Doesn’t that Swedish person ever go to school or does she think she knows it all already?
She’s off to Davos now for a world summit.
She’s off to Davos now for a world summit.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by MWG14. 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.
Meanwhile, there is simply no truth in any claim that controlled burning would have been enough to deal with fires on this scale. It may have made some impact but very often the strength of the winds and the ferocity of the fires would have overcome any attempts to break them up.
It's another aspect of the denialism that's prevalent in this thread and elsewhere: a refusal to recognise that a signficant factor in the recent Australian fires is years of prolonged drought, which in turn is the sort of thing to be expected as a result of human-driven climate change.
It's another aspect of the denialism that's prevalent in this thread and elsewhere: a refusal to recognise that a signficant factor in the recent Australian fires is years of prolonged drought, which in turn is the sort of thing to be expected as a result of human-driven climate change.
ChillDoubt //Greta should delve into the so called evidence, as I did, and concluded that it is hogwash.
————
You clearly didn’t watch my YouTube link from earlier......//
That video was an embarrassment to you (and Cox). I wouldn't be drawing attention to it if you believe in the Global Warming scam.
————
You clearly didn’t watch my YouTube link from earlier......//
That video was an embarrassment to you (and Cox). I wouldn't be drawing attention to it if you believe in the Global Warming scam.
That video was an embarrassment to you (and Cox). I wouldn't be drawing attention to it if you believe in the Global Warming scam.
—————
The only embarrassment was to Roberts(and obviously yourself if you concur with his views) who made himself look decidedly foolish when presented with the facts by Cox.
Odd too that nobody on the panel and hardly anybody in the audience were in tune with his ‘views’, but maybe that’s because they struck me as educated scientists(mostly) and students who accepted the actual facts presented to them, with absolutely nothing than mere argument from Roberts. He even cited NASA as backing up his claims but produced absolutely zero figures to back his spurious claims.
—————
The only embarrassment was to Roberts(and obviously yourself if you concur with his views) who made himself look decidedly foolish when presented with the facts by Cox.
Odd too that nobody on the panel and hardly anybody in the audience were in tune with his ‘views’, but maybe that’s because they struck me as educated scientists(mostly) and students who accepted the actual facts presented to them, with absolutely nothing than mere argument from Roberts. He even cited NASA as backing up his claims but produced absolutely zero figures to back his spurious claims.
Admittedly it’s Wiki, but this tells you all you need to know about Roberts from that exchange:
In a clash between Roberts and physicist Brian Cox on the live television talk show Q&A on ABC TV broadcast 15 August 2016, Roberts claimed that engineer and blogger Steven Goddard (a pseudonym of Tony Heller) had shown the NASA temperature data for the 1930s were "warmer than recent decades".[16] In The Guardian's assessment, Roberts was referring to a debunked conspiracy theory that claimed 1934 was hotter than 1998.[21][22] Cox then asked if NASA, the Australian Academy of Science, and the Met Office in the UK were all collaborating to manipulate global temperature data, to which Roberts asked if he was being accused of claiming they were all collaborating, to which Cox responded: "What, they've all manipulated it in the same way and accidentally got to the same answer? Is that what you're saying?"
What I find amazing Spicerack is that you believe Roberts won that debate when in fact he had his arris handed to him on a silver platter by Cox.
In a clash between Roberts and physicist Brian Cox on the live television talk show Q&A on ABC TV broadcast 15 August 2016, Roberts claimed that engineer and blogger Steven Goddard (a pseudonym of Tony Heller) had shown the NASA temperature data for the 1930s were "warmer than recent decades".[16] In The Guardian's assessment, Roberts was referring to a debunked conspiracy theory that claimed 1934 was hotter than 1998.[21][22] Cox then asked if NASA, the Australian Academy of Science, and the Met Office in the UK were all collaborating to manipulate global temperature data, to which Roberts asked if he was being accused of claiming they were all collaborating, to which Cox responded: "What, they've all manipulated it in the same way and accidentally got to the same answer? Is that what you're saying?"
What I find amazing Spicerack is that you believe Roberts won that debate when in fact he had his arris handed to him on a silver platter by Cox.
Jim - // You very much do need to be lectured to, andy, if you think that the historical changes in climate are somehow a revelation to climate scientists, or a blow to their message. //
I did not say I do not need to be lectured to, I said I do not need to be lectured to by a child - no-one does, it is patronising and pointless.
I did not say I do not need to be lectured to, I said I do not need to be lectured to by a child - no-one does, it is patronising and pointless.
Jim360 - // If a child happens to know more about something than you do, perhaps you should listen. //
I dispute that any child of sixteen can actually be knowledgeable about any subject as complex as environmental changes.
I can 'lecture' you about the workings of the internal combustion engine, simply by reading a book about it, but does that indicate that I have any deep and meaningful understahnding of the engine?
No, it indicates that I can read - but reading and understanding are not the same thing, any more than lecturing and educating are the same thing.
// Your ego is less important than your continuing education. //
My ego has nothing to do with it, what a very strange observation, and not a little patronising, but since you are a 'Climate Change' fan, that's not really surprising.
I dispute that any child of sixteen can actually be knowledgeable about any subject as complex as environmental changes.
I can 'lecture' you about the workings of the internal combustion engine, simply by reading a book about it, but does that indicate that I have any deep and meaningful understahnding of the engine?
No, it indicates that I can read - but reading and understanding are not the same thing, any more than lecturing and educating are the same thing.
// Your ego is less important than your continuing education. //
My ego has nothing to do with it, what a very strange observation, and not a little patronising, but since you are a 'Climate Change' fan, that's not really surprising.
As if anyone can be a "fan" of Climate Change.
It was patronising, I agree -- but then again, I've tried explaining this to you before, without patronising, and you are still repeating the same ill-informed nonsense that you started with, which presumably shows how little attention you pay. Nor am I the only person whose views you could, and should, have been listening to. A random stranger on the internet can reasonably be ignored, but it's essentially the entire scientific community you're turning a deaf ear to.
It is, I submit, far more patronising to ignore the opinions and collective experience of thousands of people whose career it is to understand how our Universe works, than it ever is to suggest that maybe you should listen to a child's message rather than focus on the fact that it's a child.
It was patronising, I agree -- but then again, I've tried explaining this to you before, without patronising, and you are still repeating the same ill-informed nonsense that you started with, which presumably shows how little attention you pay. Nor am I the only person whose views you could, and should, have been listening to. A random stranger on the internet can reasonably be ignored, but it's essentially the entire scientific community you're turning a deaf ear to.
It is, I submit, far more patronising to ignore the opinions and collective experience of thousands of people whose career it is to understand how our Universe works, than it ever is to suggest that maybe you should listen to a child's message rather than focus on the fact that it's a child.
And they're usually so reasonable, Andy.
https:/
https:/
I consider the idea that human activity has impacted and will continue to impact the environment and the climate more or less self-evident, Spicerack. I don't claim that any given prediction about how this will play out in the future is true. What *is* true, however, is that human activity is in multiple ways unsustainable and destructive, and it is to all our interests to recognise that and reverse it. Not specifically to avoid, say, a 2 degree rise by 2100. But because it makes sense.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Crosswords4 mins ago
I Wonder Why This Number Is Rising So...
Politics12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
