Climate Change: Scientists Say "Last Chance"

ugly

LE
Moderator
Why isn't all the pollution caused in WW2 ever mentioned, for starters all the oil lost in shipping
then there's all the bombs, it must have had some effect on the climate
The germans are to blame, 6 million camp inmates wont have been carbon neutral!
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Can you elucidate then how putting lots of a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, won’t have an impact on it?
Because the biosphere is a far more complex system than the MMGW theory allows. That's why the MMGW lobby is still scrabbling around for evidence whilst indulging in a programme of wholesale professional intimidation and exclusion of dissenters that, in scope and vehemence, rivals anything the Vatican ever attempted.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
A schoolmate of mine managed to get a letter printed in the (now deservedly defunct) News Chronicle (Liberal paper therefore by and for idiots) to the effect that the bad weather we were then (early 50s) was caused by all those aeroplanes stirring up the sky.
 
A schoolmate of mine managed to get a letter printed in the (now deservedly defunct) News Chronicle (Liberal paper therefore by and for idiots) to the effect that the bad weather we were then (early 50s) was caused by all those aeroplanes stirring up the sky.
That's why we had to build all those wind turbines - to calm it all down again.
 
Because the biosphere is a far more complex system than the MMGW theory allows. That's why the MMGW lobby is still scrabbling around for evidence whilst indulging in a programme of wholesale professional intimidation and exclusion of dissenters that, in scope and vehemence, rivals anything the Vatican ever attempted.
Sorry, I don’t understand your explanation as to how adding a known greenhouse gas to the atmosphere will not have an effect.

Your answer appears to be both burden of proof and complexity fallacies.

Added to which you earlier claimed all hydrocarbons are man made. Which is wrong, please let Venus know.

Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Sorry, I don’t understand your explanation as to how adding a known greenhouse gas to the atmosphere will not have an effect.

Your answer appears to be both burden of proof and complexity fallacies.

Added to which you earlier claimed all hydrocarbons are man made. Which is wrong, please let Venus know.

Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies
Where exactly did I claim that all hydrocarbons are man-made?

Talking of fallacies, just because a CO2 is a greenhouse gas doesn't necessarily make it a forcing factor in complex global climate system.
 
Given that every hydrocarbon molecule is made up of former living matter, not to mention the world's entire limestone deposits, it follows that life on earth had to exist to form those carbon sinks. Ergo, give or take a few volcanic eruptions, all that CO2 was in the atmosphere at one point. Add to that, if the MMGW argument holds water, there would also have been massively increased evaporation from the oceans generating yet more GHG. On that basis, and given that there is no other mechanism for extracting CO2 from the atmosphere, how did the Earth cool sufficiently for life to start and subsequently sustain itself?
I was incorrect. You said former living matter, not man made. Same rules apply. Please let Venus know that only living matter produces hydrocarbons
 
Where exactly did I claim that all hydrocarbons are man-made?

Talking of fallacies, just because a CO2 is a greenhouse gas doesn't necessarily make it a forcing factor in complex global climate system.
Can you explain how adding a known greenhouse gas to the atmosphere will not cause warming

Historical lead and lag is not analogous as it has not had CO2 rising through anthropogenic emission.
 

Trans-sane

LE
Book Reviewer
I was incorrect. You said former living matter, not man made. Same rules apply. Please let Venus know that only living matter produces hydrocarbons
Anything more complex than the "meth-" or "eth-" almost always does... The one thing above anything else that has turned me off from anthropogenic global warming though was a scientist stating "the science is settled". Nope. Science is NEVER settled. It is a constantly evolving body of knowledge. Any so called scientist that comes out with the above quote doesn't understand the prime principles of scientific method, and declarations like a t are all a bit vaccines cause autism.
 
Anything more complex than the "meth-" or "eth-" almost always does... The one thing above anything else that has turned me off from anthropogenic global warming though was a scientist stating "the science is settled". Nope. Science is NEVER settled. It is a constantly evolving body of knowledge. Any so called scientist that comes out with the above quote doesn't understand the prime principles of scientific method, and declarations like a t are all a bit vaccines cause autism.
The problem is, perversely your quote above legitimises the anti-vaccine movement which is preventing herd immunity and putting people I know with compromised immune systems at risk.
 

Trans-sane

LE
Book Reviewer
The problem is, perversely your quote above legitimises the anti-vaccine movement which is preventing herd immunity and putting people I know with compromised immune systems at risk.
When taken out of context. The point is both claims are bad science and required careful selection of data to produce a headline grabbing but false conclusion.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
I was incorrect. You said former living matter, not man made. Same rules apply. Please let Venus know that only living matter produces hydrocarbons
1. Yes you were.
2. I was referring specifically to the carbon sinks that we tap for our hydrocarbon resources - as I made clear at the time, and am therefore correct.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Can you explain how adding a known greenhouse gas to the atmosphere will not cause warming

Historical lead and lag is not analogous as it has not had CO2 rising through anthropogenic emission.
Because it's clearly not a forcing factor, as I said before.
 

Chef

LE
As the predictions are based on computer modelling, do the results reverse when the model is run backwards? Or if it is started at a point, say 1970, and run forwards and backwards 40 years do the test results match what happened?

As far as the statement 'The science is settled' wasn't that the case with a few ideas over the years, Phlogiston, Miasma theory and eugenics spring to mind. All debated by the great minds and scientific institutes of the day and all blind alleys at the best.

And that was without large amounts of money and pay checks being involved.
 
Sorry, I don’t understand your explanation as to how adding a known greenhouse gas to the atmosphere will not have an effect.

Your answer appears to be both burden of proof and complexity fallacies.

Added to which you earlier claimed all hydrocarbons are man made. Which is wrong, please let Venus know.

Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies
CO2 is a natural gas that's essential for life. Mankind puts out approximately 4% of the total.

We don't know whether the natural world has increased the amount it outputs, but even if we were to assume this was zero, then the concentration has risen from 280 parts per million to 410ppm due to man.

There's no doubt that an increase is going to have some effect, but what that effect is will be tiny, because CO2 isn't the main 'greenhouse gas', water vapour is. That water swamps the effect of CO2 in terms of temperature.

The only measurable effect that a rise in CO2 has is the additional 'greening' of the planet. That is the mass of plants has increased and that plants are now able to thrive better in areas of low rainfall.

The whole Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory relies on feedback mechanisms that just aren't seen.

The globe has been far warmer at least three times in history; the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods were far higher than today, yet there was never a run away scenario associated with those increased temperatures.

If CAGW were true, then natural warming would have released more CO2 to the atmosphere and hence a positive feedback, which would result in ever higher concentrations of CO2 and thus increased temperatures.

That didn't happen. The earth's temperature hasn't risen enough for the south east coast of Greenland to be farmable, yet that's what happened when the Vikings settled there during the Medieval warm period.

The idea that somehow there's going to be a catastrophe is ludicrous, yet it's this idea that has been taken up largely in the west as some sort of religion.

Warm periods, such as the three above, have always been seen as a climate optimum because they are the most beneficial for humans.

Focusing on CAGW when there are far more pressing issues is a folly. In any case, it's completely out of everyone's hands. There's nothing that is going to stop say China or India or Brazil or Africa increasing their output of CO2 over the next 50 years.

The UK is now outputting the same amount of CO2 as it was in 1888. Nothing we do, is going to make any difference whatsoever.

China emits the same amount of CO2 into the atmosphere in 2 weeks as we do in a year.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top