Climate Change

3% of all scientists is a huge number of scientists.
I think the majority is more likely to be right, even if it is not 97% but "only "80%.
www.forbes.com

Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

Belief in the scientific community in human-caused climate change is clearly below 97%, a close review of the evidence shows, but the claim continues to be widely publicized and defended. Would a lower level of consensus convince anyone concerned about global warming to change their views?
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
It seems I was right about being above 80% :)

@timsk are you a scientist, what is your education?
 
Last edited:
CavaliereVerde said:
@timsk are you a scientist, what is your education?
Click to expand...
CV,
This is the level of argument you climate extremists are reduced to. 'I'm a qualified scientist and you're not, ergo I'm right and you're wrong. End of debate'.
Pathetic. :mad:

My educational background has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the pseudo science pumped out by the IPCC and repeated ad nauseam by MSM et al. As with Ukraine (and probably with Covid too, I'll wager), you're wedded to a particular belief that you can't support with evidence, you don't really believe in (otherwise you'd surely accept my wagers) and you refuse point blank to consider any alternative. My educational background taught me the scientific method of enquiry, so I understand the basic principles upon which the discipline is built. What you and fellow climate alarmists are perpetrating does not stand up to the scientific method. On the contrary, it fails spectacularly. Ergo, in my book, if you really believe in the climate change nonsense then you're not a real scientist, regardless of what qualifications you have. Now, do yourself a favour - read the article I linked to and, thereafter, the declaration linked within it. Plenty of real scientists in there - 1,200 of them no less - who say exactly the same thing as me. Exactly!
Tim.
 
CavaliereVerde said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1549299781540921347
Click to expand...
The start point is a low point in the cycle of temperature fluctuations - that's why it's always picked. Temperatures have been much higher than they are now. Ergo, the graphic is grossly misleading and tells us nothing at all about man made climate change - if it exists. It might - but no one's come up with any evidence for it thus far.

The Real Inconvenient Truth: Arctic Sea Ice Has Grown Since 2012​

"Global warming paused, polar bears thriving, more coral on the Great Barrier Reef than you can shake a stick at – it’s been a difficult gig for climate alarmists of late. But there is always the melting Arctic ice, and the prospect of the Greenland ice sheet slipping off its perch and ending up in your front room. Alas, even that old standby is looking shaky, with evidence gathering that the ice is no longer melting as fast as in the recent past. On August 16th, summer sea ice in the Arctic was at its third highest extent since 2007. . ."
 
Last edited:

Climate Alarmists Report One Third of Pakistan Under Water – In Fact, it’s Eight Per Cent​

"There is something rather sad – desperate even – about the attempts by green zealots and journalists to blame the tragic monsoon floods in Pakistan on human-caused climate change. There is no scientific proof to back up this assertion, but to the alarmists it has a ‘ring of truth’ and can be conveniently fitted into the pre-ordained climate change and Net Zero political narrative. . ."
 
6. Islands are expanding: The centuries-long gradual rise in relative sea levels has not accelerated at all during the past 100 years. This helps explain why over 78% of the measured islands in the Pacific Ocean have expanded their land areas during the past 50 years. The oft-repeated theory that small islands would be flooded by rising seas has been disproven by careful observation of real-world data.
Click to expand...

Below is a photo of a bridge pier I sometimes used to stand on when I went fishing there around 40 years ago. I would stand on the pier cap of the one nearest to the right of the picture. At high tide, the water would be about level with the top of the pile cap such that it was still dry, but if a boat came by the bow waves would cause some water to splash on top. This picture is from google maps and the date is Feb 2022, I used to go fishing there in the early 1980's. You can clearly see the water line hasn't changed much at all. I have seen similar pictures of other landmarks taken up to 100 years apart that show the waterline hasn't changed.

1664009917423.png
 
new_trader said:
"This should be proof enough that those in the us government don’t believe their own climate lies."

southfront.org

Eric Zuesse: U.S. Government Likely Perpetrated Biggest-Ever Catastrophic Global-Warming Event

Eric Zuesse On September 28th, the AP headlined “Record methane leak flows from damaged Baltic Sea pipelines” and reported that “Methane leaking...
southfront.org southfront.org
Click to expand...
@new_trader
I've tried to send you a PM and when I hit send I get this message: "You may not start a conversation with the following recipients: new_trader."

I don't know if this is a glitch in the system or, possibly, that you've selected not to receive PMs from other members - or some other reason? Anyway, if you've no objection to receiving a message from me, would you try to 'start a conversation' with me and maybe that will enable me to reply?

Cheers,
Tim.
 
This subject must be taken seriously. And many countries still think that destroying the ecosystem is growth. The Point has come to an instance that it has become the urge of the moment to start protecting and restoring our ecosystem.
 
www.bbc.com

What happened to the world's ozone hole?

Back in the 1990s, the hole in the planet's ozone layer was a pressing global crisis – if we had ignored it, today there would be several.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

The Ozone Hole: Closing the Gap

After thinning at alarming rates in the 1980s and 90s, the ozone layer over Antarctica is starting to recover. Watch how ozone concentrations in the stratosphere have changed from 1979 through 2018.
earthobservatory.nasa.gov earthobservatory.nasa.gov


Nobody researched the effect of the closing ozon hole on climate change and will not do that as the global warming and carbon footprint it is a political issue and a tool to restrict freedom significantly in Western countries.

What could be learned from the ozon hole story is to trust only new researches on narrower periods (last three years) about the reality of global warming.

edit:
A very few decades ago the world had to fear a new ice age - not global warming - if they believed what scientists were telling them:
phys.org

Researchers show new Ice Age may begin by 2030

The arrival of intense cold similar to the weather that raged during the "Little Ice Age", which froze the world during the 17th century and in the beginning of the 18th century, is expected in the years 2030 to 2040. These conclusions were presented by Prof. V. Zharkova (Northumbria University)...
phys.org phys.org

www.washingtonexaminer.com

On this date 51 years ago, climate scientists predicted a new ice age was coming - Washington Examiner

Climate change hysteria has been a staple of Democratic propaganda for decades now. It’s also an integral part of President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better plan. Climate change advocacy has evolved into a cult, with supporters proclaiming that science shows we are all doomed unless we change our...
www.washingtonexaminer.com www.washingtonexaminer.com
 
Last edited:
Timsk, what's wrong with the following view:

We don't fully know why climate has changed. Perhaps it's due to man, or perhaps it's just a natural cycle, or perhaps it's not even that bad. However, what if it is man-made. Shouldn't we still try to do something that we think is best able to fix the man made possibility? And if later on we discover it was nothing to do with man, then we wasted some time and resources. It's still better than the alternative risk that we later discover it is man made, and we did nothing about it.
 
Calinor said:
Timsk, what's wrong with the following view:

We don't fully know why climate has changed. Perhaps it's due to man, or perhaps it's just a natural cycle, or perhaps it's not even that bad. However, what if it is man-made. Shouldn't we still try to do something that we think is best able to fix the man made possibility? And if later on we discover it was nothing to do with man, then we wasted some time and resources. It's still better than the alternative risk that we later discover it is man made, and we did nothing about it.
Click to expand...
Cal',
On the face of it, what you say sounds very reasonable, sensible even. However, scratch a little deeper and it doesn't stack up. Here are a few reasons why . . .

1. The climate has always changed and always will. By historical standards, it's not that warm right now and temperatures would have to rise at least another two degrees to get near historical highs. So, if it wasn't a problem in the past (it wasn't - we're still here!), there's no reason to think it'll be a problem now or in the near future.
2. All the big scare stories about melting glaciers, wild fires, flash floods etc. can almost always be explained by objective scientific analysis that has nothing at all to do with climate change.
3. If climate change is man made, then it's unlikely to be due to carbon emissions. Termites emit more Co2 globally than we do! Besides, Co2 accounts for something like 3% of all greenhouse gases - it's a minor player. And if Co2 is the problem, then the tiny reductions we make will make diddly squat difference to global temperatures. And remember, since the Paris Climate Accord in 2015, global Co2 emissions have risen - not fallen.
4. If the merchants of doom are correct and the world really is about to come to an end - then everyone everywhere - and I mean EVERYONE - would be $hit scared and in full agreement about the drastic action that needs to be taken to remedy the situation. That India, China and numerous others want nothing to do with it tells us that either there isn't a problem or, if there is one, it's not that serious.
5. The real problem is that the drive towards Net Zero can't be achieved (see 3. above) without dragging us all back to the stone age. The consequences of that are that millions of people - perhaps billions - will die of cold (oh the irony!) and starvation.
6. To conclude, Net Zero is a dangerous ideology centred around fake science and driven by globalist elites who don't have our best interests at heart.

Having said all of the above, trying to find cheap alternative energy sources that are sustainable and reliable makes perfect sense. What's not to like about that! However, the ones available thus far aren't fit for purpose. So, until scientists come up with ones that are, for the time being we should continue with gas, coal and nuclear. Lastly. check out this excellent Neil Oliver video - as he explains all this very well . . .

 
Calinor said:
. . . However, what if it is man-made. Shouldn't we still try to do something that we think is best able to fix the man made possibility? . . .
Click to expand...
Another answer to your question, Cal'. Peterson isn't everyone's cup of tea and, if he's not yours, try to focus on the message and ignore the messenger.. .

 
One can always rely on the excellent PJW to go straight to the heart of the matter and tell it like it is. Enjoy . . .

 
timsk said:
Another answer to your question, Cal'. Peterson isn't everyone's cup of tea and, if he's not yours, try to focus on the message and ignore the messenger.. .

Click to expand...
Actually a big fan of Jordan Peterson. An intellect, helpful, articulate and he has been treated horribly.

Part of me thinks we are tiny little insects on this planet, so how big could our effect be on a massive planet's climate? But I also listen to scientists, and if they say there's a good chance it's worsened by man and fossil fuels, I have to listen. It might be worth doing something about that. As long as the downside isn't too bad.

Aside from that, it was very hot in London this year :) and I have been in cities in the Far East where the pollution is just so bad it's hard to see or breathe on some occasions. It's obviously not great to pump these things out into the atmosphere even ignoring climate change.

It's good to take a measured approach to the cost benefit analysis as in Peterson's video. I'm open minded. These are big questions and hard to answer.

Peterson gives a harsh comment "too many people on the planet". It's worse than that. We've built a system that depends on there being continuous population growth

Thanks for the video Timsk
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Westward Group Alternative Energy Tokyo: No excuse for inaction on emissions
Replies
1
Views
1K
ABTrading
ABTrading
Stewenson133
12 Economic Bubbles That May Burst
Replies
18
Views
7K
SAINT
S
P
Providio's Futures Market Comentary for March 14, 2012
Replies
0
Views
2K
providiotrading
P
NVP
Property - the pitfalls and problems
Replies
1
Views
2K
Aforce1
A
Top