Climate activists disrupt British cities with 'summer uprising'

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, sunnyboy2018 said:

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/07/15/extinction-rebellion-enemies-of-the-working-class/

Because coal mining was a thriving industry in the UK before ACC became in issue?

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, Kinnock said:

Side effect of unemployment - people with too much time on their hands.

 

Why does it matter what the disfunctional government of a small country does about climate change?  If they were serious about their 'cause' they'd be protesting in China.

Sometimes the UK is a small country and sometimes it's the 5th biggest economy in the world.

Actually the nation adding the most capacity by far is China.

And you think new jobs aren't created by renewable energy?

Or that there are no downsides to burning coal?

[RickBradford]

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Just reference the IPCC report on global warming at 1.5 C vs 2.0 C

Okay.

 

 

Let me interpret the figures for you. A 2-degree warming scenario, loss of GDP=0.5%; 1.5-degree warming, loss of GDP=0.3%.

 

All this projected to happen in 2100, when the world will be several times richer than it is today.

 

That's only an "emergency" in the mind of committed activists, charlatans, or fools.

[ivor bigun]

Was looking at the pictures and film of the protestors,the usual bunch of idiots,with time on their hands,bit like i was when i went on demoes against LBJ and the vietnam war,then i got married ,got a mortgage and a daughter and had to get back to real life.

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[RickBradford]

20 hours ago, bristolboy said:

These people have a goal they want to achieve. Hallam just outlining tactics he thinks are needed to get there. How does this show that they are not interested in science?

 

 

Extinction Rebellion shows off its scientific expertise .....

[bristolboy]

13 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Okay.

 

 

Let me interpret the figures for you. A 2-degree warming scenario, loss of GDP=0.5%; 1.5-degree warming, loss of GDP=0.3%.

 

All this projected to happen in 2100, when the world will be several times richer than it is today.

 

That's only an "emergency" in the mind of committed activists, charlatans, or fools.

Tell me something. Was that the only item you found from that report? I don't want to accuse you of cherry picking in order to mislead. Because I know you would never purposely do that. And if by chance you happened to post something misleading, you would immediately own up to it when you are called out on it. But it seems to me I can recall lots of other predictions from that report.  Well, I'll give you time to think about what you posted, and then we'll see.

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Tell me something. Was that the only item you found from that report? I don't want to accuse you of cherry picking in order to mislead. Because I know you would never purposely do that. And if by chance you happened to post something misleading, you would immediately own up to it when you are called out on it. But it seems to me I can recall lots of other predictions from that report.  Well, I'll give you time to think about what you posted, and then we'll see.

Bristolboy,
Is this the report you are referring to, which you linked to last Wednesday, and which Roger Pielke referred to when he made his claim that once again the latest IPCC report has repeated its 'low confidence' that particular extreme weather events have been increasing since 1950?
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX_Full_Report-1.pdf

 

I replied a few days ago, thanking you for providing the link, but my post was censored on the grounds I had quoted too much from the report and infringed this site's copyright rules. I'll try again.

 

The types of extreme weather events that the IPCC has medium to high confidence are increasing globally, are heat waves and precipitation. They are also confident that sea levels are rising.

 

As I've mentioned before, such increases are to be expected during any warming phase, whatever the causes of the warming. Heat waves will also  be exacerbated due to the increasing Urban Heat Island effect as populations increase and cities and roads expand. More evaporation will inevitably take place as a result of warming, and more rainfall will inevitably follow.

 

However, the IPCC once again expresses 'low confidence' that extreme weather events such as cyclones, floods and droughts have increased in either frequency or intensity since 1950, on a global scale. This information is provided on pages 111 and 112 of the report.

 

Of course, the IPCC also states that 'low confidence' does not mean there is not a risk that cyclones, floods and droughts will increase. The problem is a lack of sufficiently reliable data, measurements and evidence to support such a risk with even moderate confidence.

[bristolboy]

7 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Bristolboy,
Is this the report you are referring to, which you linked to last Wednesday, and which Roger Pielke referred to when he made his claim that once again the latest IPCC report has repeated its 'low confidence' that particular extreme weather events have been increasing since 1950?
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX_Full_Report-1.pdf

 

I replied a few days ago, thanking you for providing the link, but my post was censored on the grounds I had quoted too much from the report and infringed this site's copyright rules. I'll try again.

 

The types of extreme weather events that the IPCC has medium to high confidence are increasing globally, are heat waves and precipitation. They are also confident that sea levels are rising.

 

As I've mentioned before, such increases are to be expected during any warming phase, whatever the causes of the warming. Heat waves will also  be exacerbated due to the increasing Urban Heat Island effect as populations increase and cities and roads expand. More evaporation will inevitably take place as a result of warming, and more rainfall will inevitably follow.

 

However, the IPCC once again expresses 'low confidence' that extreme weather events such as cyclones, floods and droughts have increased in either frequency or intensity since 1950, on a global scale. This information is provided on pages 111 and 112 of the report.

 

Of course, the IPCC also states that 'low confidence' does not mean there is not a risk that cyclones, floods and droughts will increase. The problem is a lack of sufficiently reliable data, measurements and evidence to support such a risk with even moderate confidence.

Once again you're cherry picking. I notice that you failed to mention any of the other high confidence predictions from the report. LIke virtual destruction of coral reefs. Or a huge decline in tropical fisheries. 

[bristolboy]

23 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Okay.

 

 

Let me interpret the figures for you. A 2-degree warming scenario, loss of GDP=0.5%; 1.5-degree warming, loss of GDP=0.3%.

 

All this projected to happen in 2100, when the world will be several times richer than it is today.

 

That's only an "emergency" in the mind of committed activists, charlatans, or fools.

 

7 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Bristolboy,
Is this the report you are referring to, which you linked to last Wednesday, and which Roger Pielke referred to when he made his claim that once again the latest IPCC report has repeated its 'low confidence' that particular extreme weather events have been increasing since 1950?
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX_Full_Report-1.pdf

 

I replied a few days ago, thanking you for providing the link, but my post was censored on the grounds I had quoted too much from the report and infringed this site's copyright rules. I'll try again.

 

The types of extreme weather events that the IPCC has medium to high confidence are increasing globally, are heat waves and precipitation. They are also confident that sea levels are rising.

 

As I've mentioned before, such increases are to be expected during any warming phase, whatever the causes of the warming. Heat waves will also  be exacerbated due to the increasing Urban Heat Island effect as populations increase and cities and roads expand. More evaporation will inevitably take place as a result of warming, and more rainfall will inevitably follow.

 

However, the IPCC once again expresses 'low confidence' that extreme weather events such as cyclones, floods and droughts have increased in either frequency or intensity since 1950, on a global scale. This information is provided on pages 111 and 112 of the report.

 

Of course, the IPCC also states that 'low confidence' does not mean there is not a risk that cyclones, floods and droughts will increase. The problem is a lack of sufficiently reliable data, measurements and evidence to support such a risk with even moderate confidence.

How did 2 such rigorously unbiased individuals as yourselves miss this one?

"The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide, resulting in ocean acidification and changes to carbonate chemistry that are unprecedented for at least the last 65 million years (high confidence)."

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_Chapter3_Low_Res.pdf

[WeekendRaider]

and in New York City, the city that was rescued from endless Charles Bronson's movies by tourism and exponentially increased "sight seeing".... Mother Nature is making a showing.  111 degrees F.  but there they cancel tourist type activities, not because of the silly temps which are easily handled but because it seems to affect the electrical grid somehow.  no one knows why.  cancel tourist related activities??? only some really really crazy "farlang" would do something like that.

the "good" news is that the "jet stream" will soon account for cooler weather later.  the real news is that the "jet stream" is increasingly becoming weaker, for some reason no one understands, and may soon disappear as a Earth system dynamic.  in fact, all of the above was predicted by some "crazy people" who "believe" in some nonsense about Co2 which we don't even have a non chemical name for.  well, as it's something we can't smell or see yet accounts for all of life on Earth, and may have on the other one of only two large rocky planets in the at all ever knowable universe.... at one time it may have we now "think".... we sometimes use a three letter word beginning with "G".  instead of the chemical name. 

notice that the US pres is from New York City and owns hotels, casinos, golf resorts...... and is the first US president to actually take any real action to scale and in time to solve this... in the only way most of us will ever be willing to do it.  a better border wall, because of "crazy" precipitation projections for upper South America and most of Mexico.... and a 'one agent' SRM agency.... the US Space Force thing.  but Trump is "crazy".  and "stupid".  yeah right, sure he is.
 

[bristolboy]

7 minutes ago, WeekendRaider said:

and in New York City, the city that was rescued from endless Charles Bronson's movies by tourism and exponentially increased "sight seeing".... Mother Nature is making a showing.  111 degrees F.  but there they cancel tourist type activities, not because of the silly temps which are easily handled but because it seems to affect the electrical grid somehow.  no one knows why.  cancel tourist related activities??? only some really really crazy "farlang" would do something like that.

the "good" news is that the "jet stream" will soon account for cooler weather later.  the real news is that the "jet stream" is increasingly becoming weaker, for some reason no one understands, and may soon disappear as a Earth system dynamic.  in fact, all of the above was predicted by some "crazy people" who "believe" in some nonsense about Co2 which we don't even have a non chemical name for.  well, as it's something we can't smell or see yet accounts for all of life on Earth, and the other one of the two large rock planets in the at all ever knowable universe.... at one time.... we sometimes use a three letter word beginning with "G".

notice that the US pres is from New York City and owns hotels, casinos, golf resorts...... and is the first US president to actually take any real action to scale and in time to solve this.  a better border wall, because of "crazy" precipitation projections for upper South America and most of Mexico.... and a 'one agent' SRM agency.... the US Space Force thing.  but Trump is "crazy".  and "stupid".
 

Actually theres a pretty sound theory as to why the jet stream is weakening, Apparently it draws its strength from the contrast between the cold temperatures of the arctic and the warm temperatures of the subtropics. Well as the Arctic is warming up a lot faster than the subtropics the contrast is less. So the jet stream is losings strength and is wobbling a lot more.

[BritManToo]

30 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Actually theres a pretty sound theory as to why the jet stream is weakening, Apparently it draws its strength from the contrast between the cold temperatures of the arctic and the warm temperatures of the subtropics. Well as the Arctic is warming up a lot faster than the subtropics the contrast is less. So the jet stream is losings strength and is wobbling a lot more.

Less than 1 degree difference over the past 100 years. Peak arctic temp was in 1939, it's lower now.

These facts are easy to check before you post alarmist nonsense.

http://www.arctic-warming.com/?page_id=21

 

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

Less than 1 degree difference over the past 100 years.

 

Thoughtful of you not to provide a link.

[BritManToo]

20 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Thoughtful of you not to provide a link.

Too stupid to type 'arctic temps last 100 years' in google?

(right click, search google for image also works)

 

I like this one too ........

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/11/23/long-term-arctic-temperature-trends/

 

There is clearly very little “unprecedented” about any of this. Jan Mayen had the warmest year on record in 2014, and a couple of the Russian stations had warm years in 2012.

What is clear though is that temperatures have plateaued, and there is no evidence that they will trend higher. Indeed, history suggests that the next move will be downwards.

As for the longer perspective, we only have to look at Greenland ice core data to see that there is nothing unprecedented about today’s climate there.     

 

Meanwhile down south ........

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/11/24/scott-shackleton-logbooks-prove-antarctic-sea-ice-not-shrinking/

 

"Antarctic sea ice had barely changed from where it was 100 years ago, scientists have discovered, after poring over the logbooks of great polar explorers such as Robert Falcon Scott and Ernest Shackleton.

But new analysis suggests that conditions are now virtually identical to when the Terra Nova and Endurance sailed to the continent in the early 1900s, indicating that declines are part of a natural cycle and not the result of global warming."

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

 

How did 2 such rigorously unbiased individuals as yourselves miss this one?

"The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide, resulting in ocean acidification and changes to carbonate chemistry that are unprecedented for at least the last 65 million years (high confidence)."

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_Chapter3_Low_Res.pdf

Aren't you cherry picking, Bristolboy? When I first mentioned that the latest, interim, IPCC report once again conceded that there was insufficient evidence to claim that extreme weather events such as cyclones, droughts and floods had been increasing since 1950, you responded that it was nonsense. Why don't you admit you were wrong?

 

I've never expressed a view that the climate is not undergoing a current warming, or that mankind's activities in general are not contributing to such warming. 

 

We've had massive deforestation take place during the past century, in the interests of agriculture, increased urbanisation, and the mining of minerals and fossil fuels.
CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are likely to contribute at least slightly to such warming because CO2 is a stronger greenhouse gas, per volume, than water vapour, just as Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas, per volume, than CO2. However, the quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere, compared to water vapour, are very small, and the quantities of Methane are even smaller.

 

If CO2 were a noxious or toxic gas like Carbon Monoxide, Chlorine, various Nitrogen Dioxides, Arsenic, and so on, then I would be very much in favour of reducing the emissions of CO2, at great expense. I strongly support the most rigorous emission controls on the burning of oil, gas and coal. Any new coal power plant should employ the latest emission-control technology, such as the Ultra-Supercritical variety, which emit negligible amounts of toxic fumes.

 

However, CO2 is not a toxic gas, or even a neutral gas. It's an absolutely essential gas for all life, and most plants increase their growth with elevated levels of CO2. Since we have cut down so much forests in recent times, it's important that the remaining forests  thrive and that new forests grow quickly. Increased CO2 and increased precipitation will help that process and be of great benefit.
 

[Chomper Higgot]

11 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Bristolboy,
Is this the report you are referring to, which you linked to last Wednesday, and which Roger Pielke referred to when he made his claim that once again the latest IPCC report has repeated its 'low confidence' that particular extreme weather events have been increasing since 1950?
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX_Full_Report-1.pdf

 

I replied a few days ago, thanking you for providing the link, but my post was censored on the grounds I had quoted too much from the report and infringed this site's copyright rules. I'll try again.

 

The types of extreme weather events that the IPCC has medium to high confidence are increasing globally, are heat waves and precipitation. They are also confident that sea levels are rising.

 

As I've mentioned before, such increases are to be expected during any warming phase, whatever the causes of the warming. Heat waves will also  be exacerbated due to the increasing Urban Heat Island effect as populations increase and cities and roads expand. More evaporation will inevitably take place as a result of warming, and more rainfall will inevitably follow.

 

However, the IPCC once again expresses 'low confidence' that extreme weather events such as cyclones, floods and droughts have increased in either frequency or intensity since 1950, on a global scale. This information is provided on pages 111 and 112 of the report.

 

Of course, the IPCC also states that 'low confidence' does not mean there is not a risk that cyclones, floods and droughts will increase. The problem is a lack of sufficiently reliable data, measurements and evidence to support such a risk with even moderate confidence.

"The types of extreme weather events that the IPCC has medium to high confidence are increasing globally, are heat waves and precipitation. They are also confident that sea levels are rising."

 

That's alright then, nothing to worry about. 

 

"Of course, the IPCC also states that 'low confidence' does not mean there is not a risk that cyclones, floods and droughts will increase. The problem is a lack of sufficiently reliable data, measurements and evidence to support such a risk with even moderate confidence."

 

I'm  not at all sure what your point is, the term 'Confidence' relates to the statistical analysis of data. You are not quoting what the IPCC said about the data and I suspect your mention without context of 'sufficiently reliable data, measurements and evidence' to be misleading. 

 

The reference to 'Global Scale' is the clue. The availability of climate data, from measurements, is clustered around high population areas in the developed world but  sparsely across vast areas of the globe. Analysis with large reliable data inputs provides results with a 'High Degree of Confidence' where less data is available the 'Degree of Confidence' is lower.

 

As the amount of data increases, the 'Degree of Confidence' increases. 

 

Odd then with such a clear need for more data that the US under this administration has ordered Nasa (the source of most remote earth climate sensing data) to withdraw from programs gathering data on the earth's climate. 

 

Hats off to you though, you are adept at taking a report and presenting a misinterpretation of its findings. 

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

Less than 1 degree difference over the past 100 years. Peak arctic temp was in 1939, it's lower now.

These facts are easy to check before you post alarmist nonsense.

http://www.arctic-warming.com/?page_id=21

 

Let's start by asking who  Arctic-Warming.com are. IP Lookup searches reveal any and all information relating to who owns and operates this website have been redacted. 

 

So please come back with something from a source that is checkable and transparent.

 

For all any of us know the data presented by Arctic-Warming.com is as fake as the website itself appears to be.

[VincentRJ]

27 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

I'm  not at all sure what your point is, the term 'Confidence' relates to the statistical analysis of data. You are not quoting what the IPCC said about the data and I suspect your mention without context of 'sufficiently reliable data, measurements and evidence' to be misleading. 

 

Really! You don't understand the term 'low confidence'? The reason I'm not specifically quoting the IPCC's actual wording is because a recent post of mine, which I spent a lot of time on, was censored.

 

I understand quite well that there are always reasons for a lack of data, such as insufficient monitoring stations in remote regions, changes in the structural nature of the environment due to engineering projects, differences in the accuracy of the monitoring devices over time, and so on.

 

However, whatever the reason for the lack of reliable evidence, the fact remains that science relies upon evidence before assertions can be made. It has been a common mantra in recent decades that extreme weather events, such as droughts, floods and cyclones have been increasing globally as a result of warming due to CO2 emissions.

 

My point is, such statements are not based upon sound evidence, according to the IPCC. If you want to make the point that 'lack of sound evidence' is a misinterpretation of 'low confidence due to a lack of evidence', then please explain.

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Really! You don't understand the term 'low confidence'? The reason I'm not specifically quoting the IPCC's actual wording is because a recent post of mine, which I spent a lot of time on, was censored.

 

Yeah, you're a martyr to free speech. The mods repeatedly pull posts for violating the 3 sentence rule. I've pointed out to you when you've violated it. What kind of learning disability doesn't preclude some people from using the internet but apparently keeps them from understanding the functionality of links?

[Chomper Higgot]

19 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Really! You don't understand the term 'low confidence'? The reason I'm not specifically quoting the IPCC's actual wording is because a recent post of mine, which I spent a lot of time on, was censored.

 

I understand quite well that there are always reasons for a lack of data, such as insufficient monitoring stations in remote regions, changes in the structural nature of the environment due to engineering projects, differences in the accuracy of the monitoring devices over time, and so on.

 

However, whatever the reason for the lack of reliable evidence, the fact remains that science relies upon evidence before assertions can be made. It has been a common mantra in recent decades that extreme weather events, such as droughts, floods and cyclones have been increasing globally as a result of warming due to CO2 emissions.

 

My point is, such statements are not based upon sound evidence, according to the IPCC. If you want to make the point that 'lack of sound evidence' is a misinterpretation of 'low confidence due to a lack of evidence', then please explain.

I absolutely understand the term 'Low Confidence'.

 

But let's be clear about something. 

 

Where there is data science confirms anthropogenic climate change with a high degree of confidence. 

 

The science is sound, we simply need more data to achieve a higher degree of confidence in areas where  data is not available. 

 

You are conflating evidence with data, perhaps deliberately so. 

 

The Scientific analysis examines the 'data' for a correlation between it and the observed climate changes (themselves data). 

 

 

A government acting to remove and or reduce sources of data is of concern. [Edit], if you are assured of your views on climate change  you too would find the deliberate removal of sources of data concerning, since if you are right in your views, more data would help prove you right. 

 

 

 

 

[VincentRJ]

59 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

"The types of extreme weather events that the IPCC has medium to high confidence are increasing globally, are heat waves and precipitation. They are also confident that sea levels are rising."

 

That's alright then, nothing to worry about. 

 

Worrying solves nothing. We need to rationally consider all the pros and cons when trying to solve a problem. If the current warming is mostly a combination of natural forces and mankind's changes to the environment in respect of deforestation and urbanisation, then reducing CO2 emissions will not solve the problem, although it might mitigate some harmful effects whilst simultaneously reducing some beneficial effects, such as increased plant growth.

 

Extremes of heat or cold have always been a problem in the past, causing many deaths among the elderly, unfit, and homeless. Modern air-conditioning is a better solution than reducing CO2 emissions at great expense.

 

History shows that civilizations have flourished during warm periods.

[VincentRJ]

26 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Yeah, you're a martyr to free speech. The mods repeatedly pull posts for violating the 3 sentence rule. I've pointed out to you when you've violated it. What kind of learning disability doesn't preclude some people from using the internet but apparently keeps them from understanding the functionality of links?

Actually, I didn't quote more than around 3 sentences. The rest I paraphrased. However, it's not an issue. I simply won't quote. My English is so good, I can make one sentence as long as several paragraphs.

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Too stupid to type 'arctic temps last 100 years' in google?

(right click, search google for image also works)

 

I like this one too ........

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/11/23/long-term-arctic-temperature-trends/

 

There is clearly very little “unprecedented” about any of this. Jan Mayen had the warmest year on record in 2014, and a couple of the Russian stations had warm years in 2012.

What is clear though is that temperatures have plateaued, and there is no evidence that they will trend higher. Indeed, history suggests that the next move will be downwards.

As for the longer perspective, we only have to look at Greenland ice core data to see that there is nothing unprecedented about today’s climate there.     

 

Meanwhile down south ........

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/11/24/scott-shackleton-logbooks-prove-antarctic-sea-ice-not-shrinking/

 

"Antarctic sea ice had barely changed from where it was 100 years ago, scientists have discovered, after poring over the logbooks of great polar explorers such as Robert Falcon Scott and Ernest Shackleton.

But new analysis suggests that conditions are now virtually identical to when the Terra Nova and Endurance sailed to the continent in the early 1900s, indicating that declines are part of a natural cycle and not the result of global warming."

I may be stupid but I'm not stupid enough to trust some blogger who is not a climatologist no matter how scientific his website looks and how scientific sounding is his text. 

This is the internet. You can always find someone somewhere to confirm your beliefs. (You might want to share the info with the party who "liked your post".)

Now the following graph comes form Berkeley Earth Science group. A team of scientists  whose specialty is analyzing large sets of data. They've actually published papers in scientific reviews.

http://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperatures-2017/

Notice how it doesn't quite conform to the  assertions blogger you cited.

 

As for antarctic sea ice not shrinking.. In fact it has fallen precipitously since 2014. I could be misleading like some of the denialists who post information and interpretation from people with god-knows-what qualifications. But instead I'll leave you with an explanation from a source that will show you what honest scientific reporting looks like:

https://www.technologyreview.com/f/613910/south-pole-sea-ice-is-now-vanishing-at-an-alarming-rate-too/

 

And one other thing. At the north pole it's an ocean not a continent. The factors governing ice formation can be very different from those in the arctic.

Precipitous' fall in Antarctic sea ice since 2014 revealed

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

We don't need more data.

 

There is plenty of old data which can be changed to achieve "a higher degree of confidence", which is the favored method of Australia's Bureau of Meteorology, and particularly NASA.

 

 

Hey presto, Instant Warming!

 

The important thing to keep in mind is that if the data doesn't match the theory, then it's the data that needs to be changed.

 

 

 

 

Hogwash ‘Change the Data’ conspiracy 

 

And as usual graphics with no links to where they came from.

[bristolboy]

 

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Hogwash ‘Change the Data’ conspiracy 

 

And as usual graphics with no links to where they came from.

Denialists to have a predilection for that. Considering the grunginess of their sources, I almost can't blame them.

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Worrying solves nothing. We need to rationally consider all the pros and cons when trying to solve a problem. If the current warming is mostly a combination of natural forces and mankind's changes to the environment in respect of deforestation and urbanisation, then reducing CO2 emissions will not solve the problem, although it might mitigate some harmful effects whilst simultaneously reducing some beneficial effects, such as increased plant growth.

 

Extremes of heat or cold have always been a problem in the past, causing many deaths among the elderly, unfit, and homeless. Modern air-conditioning is a better solution than reducing CO2 emissions at great expense.

 

History shows that civilizations have flourished during warm periods.

And now an attempt to paint environmentalism as single faceted ‘reduce CO2’.

 

I’d be careful if I were you calling up history to back your arguments. 

[RickBradford]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Hogwash ‘Change the Data’ conspiracy 

 

And as usual graphics with no links to where they came from.

The doctoring of temperature records is a matter of public record.

 

The charts come from NASA.

 

[BritManToo]

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Denialists to have a predilection for that. Considering the grunginess of their sources, I almost can't blame them.

In 2015 the alarmists said 10 years to change things or it's all over.

Nothings changed so far, another 5 years and you'll be able to say, "We told you so" or "In 10 years ....."

My prediction is you'll go for another 10 years and it's all over.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Actually, I didn't quote more than around 3 sentences. The rest I paraphrased. However, it's not an issue. I simply won't quote. My English is so good, I can make one sentence as long as several paragraphs.

I’m sure you can, but the aim is concise substance not breathless rambling.

 

 

[RickBradford]

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

My prediction is you'll go for another 10 years and it's all over.

Ten years? 

 

Here's hoping that the climate apocalypse fad is sent to the rubbish bin of history long before that. Then we can look around and see how much damage the extreme activists have caused.