Climate Change: Scientists Say "Last Chance"

...After strenuous efforts to curb greenhouse gases over decades, forced sterilisation and euthanasia plus mandatory vegan diet, the humans can sit back and watch an asteroid slam into the new, clean n green earth torching half the planet - cry from the youthful survivors "it's all your fault! If you'd built up the military-industrial complex you could have developed the weapons to stop this catastrophe!

...bless me, I'm a perverse git!
 
Even if people disagree over whether man-made climate change is a thing, surely most agree that cutting pollution (especially air and plastic pollution) is a good thing that we should work towards?
Absolutely, but the money and effort to do that is being diverted into climate "science" and into providing expensive "renewable" electricity so that when we have a countrywide winter high pressure zone, the clear still night air is filled with diesel fumes until reliable dispatchable power can be brought on line to replace the dark panels and the stalled windmills...
 
Even if people disagree over whether man-made climate change is a thing, surely most agree that cutting pollution (especially air and plastic pollution) is a good thing that we should work towards?
Exactement, mon brave. The worst pollutants are plastics, herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers imho. Fouling water courses and oceans for several hundred years can't be a good thing. I listened to some harpy banging on about eradicating all CO2 from the atmosphere the other day. Being one of the gases of life, she really didn't understand that by getting rid of all CO2 (as if you could) you'd extinguish all life on earth. "Thick as mince" doesn't come close.
 
So, climate change is over !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mighty Greenland glacier slams on brakes
This quote caught my eye:

But now it's all change. Jakobshavn is travelling much more slowly, and its trunk has even begun to thicken and lengthen.
"It's a complete reversal in behaviour and it wasn't predicted," said Dr Anna Hogg from Leeds University and the UK Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling

It has been said that any prediction, no matter how well researched, is still a guess. I would suggest that as Dr Hogg gets paid for modelling climate change outcomes she's hardly likely to agree with that.
 
Science is always subject to change as we discover more. Before the idea of a spherical earth was proven, the arguement for a flat world would have been supported by the scientists of that time. Their explanations might seem laughable in the light of what we know now, but they the best brains around then.
Likewise, our knowledge of climatics etc may well be incorrect or incomplete, so predictions may well be wrong. That is of course no excuse for wastefulness or not treating the environment with respect.
 
This quote caught my eye:

But now it's all change. Jakobshavn is travelling much more slowly, and its trunk has even begun to thicken and lengthen.
"It's a complete reversal in behaviour and it wasn't predicted," said Dr Anna Hogg from Leeds University and the UK Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling

It has been said that any prediction, no matter how well researched, is still a guess. I would suggest that as Dr Hogg gets paid for modelling climate change outcomes she's hardly likely to agree with that.
Hence it's called a "prediction." It's variable. You put in as much data as possible with the current trends and try and forecast.

And wow, just like all the others who get paid by the other side to argue and disprove the findings? Hardly earth shaking.
 
"New" tech is never rosy - imagine and count up all the subsidies given over the years to all the fossil fuel industries.
I would be genuinely interested if you could direct me at some evidence that shows that fossil fuel industries were at any time subsidised in order for them to be price competitive with another form of energy.
 
Science is always subject to change as we discover more. Before the idea of a spherical earth was proven, the arguement for a flat world would have been supported by the scientists of that time. Their explanations might seem laughable in the light of what we know now, but they the best brains around then.
Likewise, our knowledge of climatics etc may well be incorrect or incomplete, so predictions may well be wrong. That is of course no excuse for wastefulness or not treating the environment with respect.
Incorrect about the earth being flat being supported by the then scientists: We have known that Earth is round for over 2,000 years

And that's just the ancient Greeks.
 
Incorrect about the earth being flat being supported by the then scientists: We have known that Earth is round for over 2,000 years

And that's just the ancient Greeks.
Ah, butNot a universal belief - it was speculative from 6th - 3rd century BC, when it was proven. Ancient mesopotamians etc believed the world a a disc floating on water or as a multi layered Ziggurat. All models fitted the"best" explanations of the particular time. However as time progressed with better measurements of distance and time, it could be proved that the earth was spheroid in shape.
 
Exactement, mon brave. The worst pollutants are plastics, herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers imho. Fouling water courses and oceans for several hundred years can't be a good thing. I listened to some harpy banging on about eradicating all CO2 from the atmosphere the other day. Being one of the gases of life, she really didn't understand that by getting rid of all CO2 (as if you could) you'd extinguish all life on earth. "Thick as mince" doesn't come close.
That's why I tune out the incessant bed-wetting of the eco brigade with their Doomsday predictions. When they claim that carbon dioxide is "pollution" their argument falls flat with me. CO2 is not pollution. It's plant food.

Yet if I claim a healthy dose of scepticism about their theories and Chicken Little hysteria, somehow I'm a "science denier" according to these scientific illiterates.
 
sea levels are not rising;
I'm not going to get into the rest of your post as it will just end up going round in circles. However, do you have any evidence for this?

Everything I've seen is that global sea levels have been rising steadily but slowly for the last 200 years or so.
 
"New" tech is never rosy - imagine and count up all the subsidies given over the years to all the fossil fuel industries.
Whenever "Oil Subsidies" are mentioned what's usually in play are the allowable expenses and depreciations in the tax regime that are available to *all* companies including renewables operators. Or often the suggestion that Oil operations weren't taxed enough.. neither of these are "subsidies". How many actual "subsidies" have oil companies recieved? Actual money to either perform an operation or to allow a lower end price to be offered...
 

Grey Fox

*Russian Troll*
Science is always subject to change as we discover more. Before the idea of a spherical earth was proven, the arguement for a flat world would have been supported by the scientists of that time. Their explanations might seem laughable in the light of what we know now, but they the best brains around then.
Likewise, our knowledge of climatics etc may well be incorrect or incomplete, so predictions may well be wrong.
If you ignore already existing facts like water vapour and human role in it, or buffers role of oceans, or buriing carbon in swamps and plactic garbage, or vulcan eruptions - it is not science. It is pseudoscience.
If you based your 'proves' not on the cold and rational mind, but on the emotional reactions - it is not science.
If you appeals not to scientists, but to mob and politics - it is not a science.
If you use falsified data - it is not a science.
That is of course no excuse for wastefulness or not treating the environment with respect.
There are two close, but diametrally contrary ways. First - the 'rational usage of nature' for the maximisation human profit and wealth, not only in modern, but in future, too. Second - the 'ideology of environmentalism', based on minimisation of human activity (and human wealth).
Former way - is a way of the rational thinking and increasing of humanity power.
Latter one - is idea of human badness, and 'protection of wild nature', based on the irrational ideas and pseudoscientific 'theories'.
 

Latest Threads

Top