Climate Change: Scientists Say "Last Chance"

Perhaps they do spot your "error" and are too polite to mention it?
So you are of the opinion that people that will use anything but science to push "climate science" including endless ad hom, formal fallacy, and outright name calling would miss a chance to use real evidence their cries of "moron" are not fallacious because they are polite?
 
Are humans emitting lots of the gases that increase warming?
No, but the consumption does, food and technology production, housing, public services and transport are all required by humans in the modern world, these cannot stop to curb emissions, so fewer humans using them is the only logical choice, at least for some.
I mean, how the hell do they think they are going to reverse 100 years of industrialization, (40 years in climate-speak)

The question is who will give up this way of life?

So far as the politics are concerned, The left is projecting the climate issue the loudest as a means to topple the evil capitalism, in typical fashion, prove me wrong.
The way I see most people appear to be in the west if a choice between say, A) giving up what you have worked for so somebody else can have it at your expense and degradation of your lifestyle,
or,
B) Making space by doing away with the people who would force such things on you, I know damn well what these folks will do, ballot box first, fists and cuffs if that fails.

Call it bleak, but I will put money on it if the climate freaks are allowed to dictate policy, they will be the first ones in the skip to reduce carbon emissions.
Call it comeuppance for them letting politics dictate their "de facto" science.

Somebody is going to get properly hacked soon, there is the underlying truth to be had!

Calling Gary, Earth to gary, Come in Gary...







It's either that or it's a load of convenient political bollocks.
 
So you are of the opinion that people that will use anything but science to push "climate science" including endless ad hom, formal fallacy, and outright name calling would miss a chance to use real evidence their cries of "moron" are not fallacious because they are polite?
Remember, Only scientists who agree absolutely are allowed to participate and be heard, another red flag when it involves science.

Remember Gallileo!

Here is who we should be putting our faith in, not these clowns in the UN..

Space Weather and Atmosphere team - Team - British Antarctic Survey

Mainly:
Solar effects on climate. To measure changes in the geoelectric field and understand how it can affect the atmosphere. Changes in the geoelectric field between the ground and the ionosphere have been linked to changes in atmospheric temperature, from the surface upwards.
So the science, the real science is NOT in, it;s ongoing, as you would expect.
The UN better get the cull in quick before our men and women at the pole make a breakthrough and save the world.

Gareth Chisham - British Antarctic Survey

Does Gareth look worried?
He is rocking his climate shades indoors with a pint, solving mankind's great science while Greta and her band of anti-capitalists try to ruin our lives.
 
Last edited:
Remember, Only scientists who agree absolutely are allowed to participate and be heard, another red flag when it involves science.

Remember Gallileo!

Here is who we should be putting our faith in, not these clowns in the UN..

Space Weather and Atmosphere team - Team - British Antarctic Survey

Mainly:


So the science, the real science is NOT in, it;s ongoing, as you would expect.
The UN better get the cull in quick before our men and women at the pole make a breakthrough and save the world.
We've been experiencing the effects of the downtrend toward the approaching solar minimum for a while now, and that has caused gains in polar ice... yay!

Of course at the solar minimum and a while after we are most vulnerable to planet killing effects from further out in the universe by its contributing to the shrinking of the heliosphere* (which some scientists have trouble figuring out the cause which certainly can't be from not completely recovering from the weakening of the magnetic field that created it during the previous longest solar minimum before the next down turn occurred, innit)... boo!

*this would be when we are most vulnerable to gamma ray emmissions blowing holes in, or completely erasing, our ozone layer.

The obvious solution is to find some way to monetize the human contribution to the lack of sunspot activity.
 
Last edited:
The consequences of following the "denialists" and their being wrong are so enormously worse than following the scientific consensus and that being wrong that from a logical position it should be an easy decision.
It's a two horse race where if one horse loses and you bet on it then you lose a bit of cash but if you bet on the other and it loses then you get shot in the head.
Classic fallacy argument.
 
Remember, Only scientists who agree absolutely are allowed to participate and be heard, another red flag when it involves science.

Remember Gallileo!

Here is who we should be putting our faith in, not these clowns in the UN..

Space Weather and Atmosphere team - Team - British Antarctic Survey

Mainly:


So the science, the real science is NOT in, it;s ongoing, as you would expect.
The UN better get the cull in quick before our men and women at the pole make a breakthrough and save the world.

Gareth Chisham - British Antarctic Survey

Does Gareth look worried?
He is rocking his climate shades indoors with a pint, solving mankind's great science while Greta and her band of anti-capitalists try to ruin our lives.
Forgot a lot 0f ARRSers were pseudo scientists who can't even be bothered to do basic research who they are quoting from.
 
Forgot a lot 0f ARRSers were pseudo scientists who can't even be bothered to do basic research who they are quoting from.
It appears you don't.

  1. Considers the predictions of what a 1.5°C global-average temperature rise above pre-industrial levels means for the Antarctic Peninsula region, based on current scientific understandings; and
  2. Discusses the implications of the predicted changes for the work of the CEP and ATCM.

So what you do is copy and paste the details of the papers and you will end up being able to read them for yourself.

Turner, J., S. R. Colwell, G. J. Marshall, T. A. Lachlan-Cope, A. M. Carleton, P. D. Jones, V; Lagun, P. A. Reid, and S. Iagovkina, 2005: Antarctic climate change during the last 50 years. Int. J. Climatol., 25, 279-294.
Search the bold in google and it will take you to the paper, first link.

RMetS Journals

Now click the little "PDF" and voila. have fun, do it with all of them.

I stand by the facts that there is not enough historical data to lay claim at this point, It is evolving.
Yes, human consumption is affecting things in a small way, but that is not the whole picture.

Scientists do not know, Politicians do not know, Greta does not know and nobody on ARRSE knows.

We DO know that politics is taking advantage of this by putting a brick wall at the point that suits them.
The prediction.
All they see is cash cow to prop up thier ever incessant need to fund endless wasteful borrowing in order to stay in power, promises and bigger promises, tax tax tax.

Like I said earlier, The way they lay defacto cliam, there is only one solution.
A cull.
I think they are wrong but if by chnace they are proven right, It will be a "us" or "them" moment in history for every nation.

Only an imbecele would think that all governemnets are luvvy dubby, what one nation gives up another will take it's place, That is a historical fact that will never change, a one that Liberals cannot seem to come to grips with, maybe it does not fit the agenda.
It will ultimately be their undoing.

Are you willing to give up all your progress so somebody else can have it?
 
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.

A genuine question if I may ask...

As I understand it, the ignition temperature of wood (ie trees and such stuff) is around 250-300C. Why does a 1C temperature rise to 40C cause woods to spontaneously burn?
Because Australian bush fires have increased since Australia has started reducing the amount of controlled burns under pressure from environmentalists to make Australia do something about CO2 emissions.

so Australia has now burnt a load of carbon neutral bio mass because it has tried to stop burning carbon neutral bio mass in order to reduce carbon emissions.

the 40 degree number is made up. Nobody seems to have know, but you need a number designed by committee for the new religion to scare people .
 
Forgot a lot 0f ARRSers were pseudo scientists who can't even be bothered to do basic research who they are quoting from.
Only one - It goes by the name of Blobster.

Blobster also has a penchant for using the phrase '' can't even be bothered to do basic research ''

Spooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooky
 
Are humans emitting lots of the gases that increase warming?
You might be. But whatever your release, it is still meaningless, inconsequential, and statistically insignificant.
 
Forgot a lot 0f ARRSers were pseudo scientists who can't even be bothered to do basic research who they are quoting from.
Ah, yes, using their estimation of population sizes of groups of krill (that are obviously not the same krill every year, and surely not affected by any other factors like being stupid enough to float in front of a pod of whales the day before they get counted estimated) to establish suggested effects of environmental change that will be attributed to humans by others... much better than estimating and not measuring actual CO2 outputs of everything and comparing against estimations of previous levels from ice core samples that are not "perfect" records.

Those thus engaged would be pseudo scientists who can't even be bothered to do basic measurement, which is the most basic of basic research, to which to actually put foundation to any claim of human induced climate change. But they don't need to do any research, when they can just write up nonsense to give all the cartoonish, self-imagined, heroic Dear Leaders out there something to point at so that they may feel superior about the subjects of which they know everything about nothing substantial.
 
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.
Indeed it does. But the question is, do you believe the paleo atmosphere reconstruction from ice cores are workable or not. Because that paragraph above suggests you think ice core measurements are worthless
 
Indeed it does. But the question is, do you believe the paleo atmosphere reconstruction from ice cores are workable or not. Because that paragraph above suggests you think ice core measurements are worthless
They would be as much use as, and much less accurate than, any high-resolution record of high-precision measurements of jumbled shit and piss in approximating the average age and health of a particular family of hyrax over the last millenium could be.
 
They would be as much use as, and much less accurate than, any high-resolution record of high-precision measurements of jumbled shit and piss in approximating the average age and health of a particular family of hyrax over the last millenium could be.
so to be clear, you are rubbishing all ice core atmospheric reconstruction.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
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.
I'm struggling to see the correlation between higher CO2 levels and increased temperatures over time. According to MMGW theory, the chart below isn't possible.

1579339727097.png
 
so to be clear, you are rubbishing all ice core atmospheric reconstruction.
To be clear, the scientists directly involved discredit it themselves, in kinder terms, with linguistic gymnastics trying to sound as if it isn't rubbish, and justify the expensive continuation of such by saying they are refining the techniques used, and recalibrating their efforts against shorter term studies to get to the results they want, er, more accurate representations.

The jumble of shit and piss is spread out over thousands of square miles and the tiny "representative samples" are taken from statistically insignificant sized areas of a couple of square inches. And the jumble is much more throroughly jumbled than I have bothered to point out. Those little pockets of air "travel" through the ice, and the speed with which they migrate cannot be determined and can definitely not be constant. And you can't even determine the direction of travel.

They don't even mention if they check the water from the ice core for dissolved CO2, or carbonic acid, and they couldn't tell which tiny air bubble the water could have picked the CO2, or combined with it to form carbonic acid from, or if it still existed within the core sample to be observed anyway. So there isn't really a good representation of CO2 for the tiny column sample anyway.

And if you really want to be accurate, you can't carbon date water, you can only carbon date the pollution and detrius (if you have enough) that has settled on any particular season of ice layer, that may or may not have moved on, who knows when, leaving it behind, or carrying it through to a different layer elsewhere and re-depositing it.

But I suppose, it would be up to me to research that for you and go find an article or study and break it down Barney-style for you, and then, you still won't believe it.
 
I'm struggling to see the correlation between higher CO2 levels and increased temperatures over time. According to MMGW theory, the chart below isn't possible.

View attachment 444415
Britain, (and Europe), was significantly warmer at the time the Romans cast covetous eyes at it.
it was obviously all the gas guzzling chariots everyone was driving.
 
Of course at the solar minimum and a while after we are most vulnerable to planet killing effects from further out in the universe by its contributing to the shrinking of the heliosphere* (which some scientists have trouble figuring out the cause which certainly can't be from not completely recovering from the weakening of the magnetic field that created it during the previous longest solar minimum before the next down turn occurred, innit)... boo!
Given that the heliosphere extends out to well beyond the orbit of Pluto and that is a result of plasma generated by the sun and also the fact that the exact boundary of the heliosphere is not known, then it is unlikely to have any known effect on the earth.
 
If they insist on using data post-Vietnam war as their argument, why don't we just use the data that IS accurate...

The industrialized countries that the population increase matches the hockey stick graphs of the climate cult?

Then it's easy, the job of reversing the approved climate trend falls on those countries, I somehow think western countries will not be in that list.
If they are we have to pick a side, I know where I stand.

Let's make a shit list of which countries who MUST reduce their population, remember it's "us"! or "them" and it's what the climate cult secretly wants, we have to bolster military capacity accordingly which will enrage the cult, sod them.

Maybe, just maybe, that is what these population booming countries are already doing while we allow the fifth column of shitweasels, toerags, and misfits to weaken our society and politics across the west, they are weakening us against the people who will certainly take what we give up.

Would anybody disagree with that forecast?

I would suggest If some government is sitting on a secret patent for clean energy, NOW is the time to make it public.
 
Last edited:
Given that the heliosphere extends out to well beyond the orbit of Pluto and that is a result of the solar winds made of plasma generated and propelled by the sun and it's magnetic activity and also the fact that the exact boundary of the heliosphere is not known, then it is unlikely to have any known effect other than being the theoretical protective bubble of the solar system (much like the ozone layer around earth).
And apparently that Irony is lost on you...
 

Top