Climate Change: Scientists Say "Last Chance"

You like your conspiracy theories, don't you?

Alternatively, the atmosphere is a) increasing in CO2 b) increasing in average temperature c) accelerating over the last couple of centuries, far faster than in any previous "natural cycle".

Science doesn't care if you're Ayn Rand or Vladimir Lenin; it's all about repeatable experiments. It doesn't care if you insist that nothing to see here, move along now; or "if in danger, or in doubt; run in circles, scream and shout". The measurements indicate that the temperature is rising, and so is the sea level (slowly).

Shouting at the scientists because you don't want to believe what they're saying, just makes you look... like Jeremy Corbyn and his mates. Utterly unwilling to face facts, totally convinced that they're correct in the face of all the evidence.
Conspiracy theory eh, nice try.
More like conspiracy fact, it was a theory many moons ago, circa UN Agenda 21

Combat climate change by taxing carbon instead of salaries, UN chief urges

and of course, the from non other than the UN

Pave Way For Carbon Taxation as Major Global Trend, Secretary-General Urges Finance Ministers’ Climate Meeting, Noting Emissions’ Pricing Raised $44 Billion in 2018 | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

If you really want a conspiracy theory

Reducing carbon really means reducing population.

We will see how long that one remains a theory.

Also, climate science is not defacto, as we all know science is ever changing.
We will see how this defacto science evolves.
Of course, anybody who will not accept that it will change and may not support their cult, will of course claim it's a conspiracy.
 
can someone explain how 7 billion people are constantly generating 100kw of heat?
Sorry.Found the story now.
" The amount of heat being added to the oceans is equivalent to every person on the planet running 100 microwave ovens all day and all night."
So along with elephants,Nelson's Column and Belgium we now have a new way to measure certain things and events.
 
I see Saint David of Attenborough is blaming the Australian bush-fires on climate change, as air temperatures have reached 40C, and that last degree has been critical.
Over the many many years that David Attenborough and his extensive film crews, with their tons of gear, have been flying to every far corner and deepest ocean of the planet to bring the Wonders of the World to our living rooms, just how many million tons of carbon footprint has he personally left in his wake? ...A staggering amount of CO2 has got his initials on them...

The man is a legend and his contribution to the Natural Sciences has been immense for decades, but he has quite literally been round the planet hundreds of times in Business Class luxury while Joe Public has been lucky to get a single flight to Benidorm a year. Climate Change impact can be parked at his doorstep far more than Joe Public and before his like make condescending noises about the rest of the herd they need to take a look in the mirror for a bit and consider why we may be in this position...

As ever, it's always someone else's fault...
 
Where has the CO2 increase itself been measured?

Just looking at half of normal planetary fluctuations on a scale larger than your lifespan?

Comparing modern samples from above an active volcanic area with little population to assume the populations input against approximations extrapolated from random sections of ice core samples that are not the pristine, unchanged record they are assumed to be?
Do you not believe the ice core atmospheric composition record to be accurate?

Maggie Thatcher seemed convinced enough about greenhouse gases and climate change. I’m interested to see those who venerate her explain how she was gullible and fooled.
 
Conspiracy theory eh, nice try.
More like conspiracy fact, it was a theory many moons ago, circa UN Agenda 21

Combat climate change by taxing carbon instead of salaries, UN chief urges

and of course, the from non other than the UN

Pave Way For Carbon Taxation as Major Global Trend, Secretary-General Urges Finance Ministers’ Climate Meeting, Noting Emissions’ Pricing Raised $44 Billion in 2018 | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

If you really want a conspiracy theory

Reducing carbon really means reducing population.

We will see how long that one remains a theory.

Also, climate science is not defacto, as we all know science is ever changing.
We will see how this defacto science evolves.
Of course, anybody who will not accept that it will change and may not support their cult, will of course claim it's a conspiracy.
Yes conspiracy.

either politicians are exploiting something real for their advantage (no conspiracy) and exaggerating when it suits them. Added to the usual watermelons pushin

or they are making the whole thing up to create the opportunity for exploitation. Making something up on a multi-national, multi-governmental, multi-organisational scale never seen before.
 
Maggie Thatcher seemed convinced enough about greenhouse gases and climate change.

"
The doomsters’ favorite subject today is climate change. This has a number of attractions for them. First, the science is extremely obscure so they cannot easily be proved wrong. Second, we all have ideas about the weather: traditionally, the English on first acquaintance talk of little else.

Third, since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism. All this suggests a degree of calculation. Yet perhaps that is to miss half the point. Rather, as it was said of Hamlet that there was method in his madness, so one feels that in the case of some of the gloomier alarmists there is a large amount of madness in their method.

Indeed, the lack of any sense of proportion is what characterizes many pronouncements on the matter by otherwise sensible people. Thus President Clinton on a visit to China, which poses a serious strategic challenge to the US, confided to his host, President Jiang Zemin, that his greatest concern was the prospect that “your people may get rich like our people, and instead of riding bicycles, they will drive automobiles, and the increase in greenhouse gases will make the planet more dangerous for all.”

It would, though, be difficult to beat for apocalyptic hyperbole former Vice President Gore. Mr Gore believes: ‘The cleavage in the modern world between mind and body, man and nature, has created a new kind of addiction: I believe that our civilisation is, in effect, addicted to the consumption of the earth itself.’

And he warns: “Unless we find a way to dramatically change our civilisation and our way of thinking about the relationship between humankind and the earth, our children will inherit a wasteland.”

But why pick on the Americans? Britain’s then Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, has observed: “There is no greater national duty than the defense of our shoreline. But the most immediate threat to it today is the encroaching sea.” Britain has found, it seems, a worthy successor to King Canute.

The fact that seasoned politicians can say such ridiculous things – and get away with it – illustrates the degree to which the new dogma about climate change has swept through the left-of-centre governing classes…."


Margaret Thatcher "Statecraft" Harper Collins 2002 ISBN 978-0060199739
 
"
The doomsters’ favorite subject today is climate change. This has a number of attractions for them. First, the science is extremely obscure so they cannot easily be proved wrong. Second, we all have ideas about the weather: traditionally, the English on first acquaintance talk of little else.

Third, since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism. All this suggests a degree of calculation. Yet perhaps that is to miss half the point. Rather, as it was said of Hamlet that there was method in his madness, so one feels that in the case of some of the gloomier alarmists there is a large amount of madness in their method.

Indeed, the lack of any sense of proportion is what characterizes many pronouncements on the matter by otherwise sensible people. Thus President Clinton on a visit to China, which poses a serious strategic challenge to the US, confided to his host, President Jiang Zemin, that his greatest concern was the prospect that “your people may get rich like our people, and instead of riding bicycles, they will drive automobiles, and the increase in greenhouse gases will make the planet more dangerous for all.”

It would, though, be difficult to beat for apocalyptic hyperbole former Vice President Gore. Mr Gore believes: ‘The cleavage in the modern world between mind and body, man and nature, has created a new kind of addiction: I believe that our civilisation is, in effect, addicted to the consumption of the earth itself.’

And he warns: “Unless we find a way to dramatically change our civilisation and our way of thinking about the relationship between humankind and the earth, our children will inherit a wasteland.”

But why pick on the Americans? Britain’s then Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, has observed: “There is no greater national duty than the defense of our shoreline. But the most immediate threat to it today is the encroaching sea.” Britain has found, it seems, a worthy successor to King Canute.

The fact that seasoned politicians can say such ridiculous things – and get away with it – illustrates the degree to which the new dogma about climate change has swept through the left-of-centre governing classes…."


Margaret Thatcher "Statecraft" Harper Collins 2002 ISBN 978-0060199739
Which has the problem as the doomsayers and the far left for hijacking and proposing idealistic solutions to a legitimate cause.

Well done, you prove my point. There should be a thread on how to solve climate change caused by human activity and not one on whether it is real.

or perhaps it is a conspiracy, like vaccinations?
 
Yes conspiracy.

either politicians are exploiting something real for their advantage (no conspiracy) and exaggerating when it suits them. Added to the usual watermelons pushin

or they are making the whole thing up to create the opportunity for exploitation. Making something up on a multi-national, multi-governmental, multi-organisational scale never seen before.
One hand washing the other.

Let's face it, some people want the world for themselves having contributed nothing to it.
The technologies they never created requires fewer people using it in the world they envisage, they see themselves as the few.
Emissions produced by carbon-based life should only be emitted by them.

The number of young people spouting "there are too many people" is astounding.
The same people think open borders are a good idea.
It doesn't take a genius to know where they are learning that weapons-grade hypocrisy.

The second point of call, why don't they just call it for what it is and see where it takes us or is that too much of a risk seeing as they are outnumbered.

The timeframe they are shouting about requires nothing less than a massive depopulation.
They just don't have the balls to say it as it is.

If not, there is a massive amount of bullshit in their defacto science.
 
Last edited:
One hand washing the other.

Let's face it, some people want the world for themselves having contributed nothing to it.
The technologies they never created requires fewer people using it in the world they envisage, they see themselves as the few.
Emissions produced by carbon-based life should only be emitted by them.

The number of young people spouting "there are too many people" is astounding.
The same people think open borders are a good idea.
It doesn't take a genius to know where they are learning that weapons-grade hypocrisy.
A photo from my 'O' level history.
A very nice looking early twenties woman with a very happy smiling face and tears of joy running down her face.
taken in the late thirties.
She had her right arm up in a Hitler salute.
The young are naïve generally.
 
One hand washing the other.

Let's face it, some people want the world for themselves having contributed nothing to it.
The technologies they never created requires fewer people using it in the world they envisage, they see themselves as the few.
Emissions produced by carbon-based life should only be emitted by them.

The number of young people spouting "there are too many people" is astounding.
The same people think open borders are a good idea.
It doesn't take a genius to know where they are learning that weapons-grade hypocrisy.

The second point of call, why don't they just call it for what it is and see where it takes us or is that too much of a risk seeing as they are outnumbered.

The timeframe they are shouting about requires nothing less than a massive depopulation.
They just don't have the balls to say it as it is.

If not, there is a massive amount of bullshit in their defacto science.
no, what you are saying there is that some of the solutions proposed are ridiculous or will not achieve the desired outcome.

that has little to do with the problem face.

it’s a bit like saying that because suggesting you rearrange the deckchairs on the titanic is stupid, it means the ship cannot possibly be a bit leaky
 
Last edited:
no, what you are saying there is that some of the solutions proposed are ridiculous or will not achieve the desired outcome.

that has little to do with the problem face.

it’s a bit like saying that because suggesting you rearrange the deckchairs on the titanic is stupid, it means the ship cannot possibly be a bit leaky
Eh? you have lost me there mate.
 
Not so much humans, but the stuff that they do. So we need to reduce the number of humans.
Problem solved.
Agreed. It does not alter human activity altering the climate. The premise of anthroporgenic climate change
 
Last edited:
Do you not believe the ice core atmospheric composition record to be accurate?

Maggie Thatcher seemed convinced enough about greenhouse gases and climate change. I’m interested to see those who venerate her explain how she was gullible and fooled.
How is an ice sheet consistent?

It melts deforms, and erodes from the bottom from thermal heat, pressure and shifting of both the ice mass and the earth, it melts and flows in the middle from pressure, and it melts, erodes, deforms, and evaporates on the top from solar heating, wind, other weather, and activity. You could compare it to something akin to shuffling a deck of cards, except the cards disappear completely or flow and mix into the other cards. They are not composed of neat, reliable layers that can be counted and depended on like tree rings.

As to Maggie, I would contend you are incorrect, as usual.
 
@fraudstar I think you mean 'anthropogenic' there chap.
I myself prefer to throw in 'anthropomorphic' often because of the human face they try to superimpose on nature, and they (the massively intelligent super beings that they presume themselves to be) rarely, if ever, notice.

Shhh!
 
Last edited:
I myself prefer to throw in 'anthropomorphic' often because of the human face they try to superimpose on nature, and they (the massively intelligent super beings that they presume themselves to be) rarely, if ever, notice.

Shhh!
Perhaps they do spot your "error" and are too polite to mention it?
 

Latest Threads

Top