But unfortunately that's complete poppycock.
A little truth for a change.
- Thread starter Phil Pascoe
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
artie
Sawdust manufacturer.
Not a very convincing statement.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Both "sides" - what 99% of the worlds scientists and masses of evidence accumulating every day, versus a few nutters? There is only one side - it is proven beyond doubt.
The most alarming graph so far has been the one in this article which shows steady rise year on year until recently when the graph takes a turn upwards. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66387537
Dire warnings here from Bill McGuire: https://www.theguardian.com/comment...er-storm-britain-future-tories-labour-climate
Basically we are up s*** creek.
Last edited:
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Wrong again. Global temperature has increased. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
Climate "change" rather than "global warming" because some of the consequences of global warming may not be locally evident everywhere, even cooling in some places due the changing weather patterns.
Increased CO2 level is the cause and has been known/forecast since about1856 and is not in dispute.
Yes it could be good for plant growth but not necessarily to the benefit of **** sapiens and a lot of other species, especially at the top of the food chain i.e. ourselves and higher mammals.
Good for beavers apparently so it's not all bad news! https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/as-the-arctic-warms-beavers-move-in-180981259/
Last edited:
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Wrong again.
England's hottest summers ever recorded were in 2022 and 2018, both with an average temperature of 17.1 degrees Celsius. During summer 2022, record-breaking temperatures exceeding 40 degrees Celsius were reached at several locations in England, such as Heathrow and St James's Park in London.30 Jan 2024
England: hottest summers 1884-2023 - Statista
statista.com
https://www.statista.com › statistics › warmest-summers-o...
Last edited:
The ones who scream the loudest this this is a hoax, will be the ones screaming the loudest when the water is lapping at their sandals, in blaming everyone else.
Last edited:
Some people will believe any old junk they happen to read on the internet; a case in point is fake quotations attributed to Aristotle....How dare you.
As far as I'm concerned, we're all missing the Big Question: if the predicted "climate catastrophe" does indeed come about, would it actually be A Bad Thing? The world population of **** "Sapiens" is manifestly too big, and as a species our behaviour is out of control and unsupportable, so would the reduction of our numbers by 90%, for example, really be a catastrophe for the other creatures condemned to share the planet with us? Obviously, the wiping out of our entire species would probably be the optimum result, but perhaps a few survivors might just learn a valuable lesson as they struggle to survive the results of their own folly..
Largely my sentiments also.
Is it about doing the best for the planet, or the best for ourselves ?
We certainly have an inflated view of our importance and place in
the natural world.
artie
Sawdust manufacturer.
That was dealt with in a previous thread.Some people will believe any old junk they happen to read on the internet; a case in point is fake quotations attributed to Aristotle....
I'm still waiting for proof that he didn't say it.
I personally like the graph showing the rate of increase in the consumption of frozen peas and that of divorce rate. The correlation is beyond debate statistically. Divorce rates are driven by the consumption of frozen peas!
Just because two lines on a graph correlate, a statistical way of proving there is a relationship does not mean one actually exists. Just like CO2 and climate change.
I know, I know, most people vote based on how their parents voted, or some sound bite off the TV and the vast majority have never read the manifesto of the party they vote for but are adamant that they know why the rest of us should support their political views.
Just because two lines on a graph correlate, a statistical way of proving there is a relationship does not mean one actually exists. Just like CO2 and climate change.
I know, I know, most people vote based on how their parents voted, or some sound bite off the TV and the vast majority have never read the manifesto of the party they vote for but are adamant that they know why the rest of us should support their political views.
The most compelling evidence about the absolute phoney of the climate debate is the controlled experiments on exactly how much CO2 increases temperature in different concentrations. If memory serves, CO2 up to circa 20% only accounts for at maximum a 1 degree increase in temperature. It actually takes very little to achieve this 1 degree increase, but any further increase in concentration has no real efffect.
To put this in context, if you wear a shirt and put a pullover on it increases your body temperature by an amount. That amount is fixed, to get warmer you have to add more layers, or something else besides CO2.
If you took all the CO2 out of the atmosphere we would be a few degrees cooler. These experiments are simple to conduct to find out exactly how much of an effect CO2 has on trapping heat. With things you find in your workshop and a welding CO2 tank you can do them yourself. You don’t need a climate degree to work out that the hype on CO2 is complete tosh.
To put this in context, if you wear a shirt and put a pullover on it increases your body temperature by an amount. That amount is fixed, to get warmer you have to add more layers, or something else besides CO2.
If you took all the CO2 out of the atmosphere we would be a few degrees cooler. These experiments are simple to conduct to find out exactly how much of an effect CO2 has on trapping heat. With things you find in your workshop and a welding CO2 tank you can do them yourself. You don’t need a climate degree to work out that the hype on CO2 is complete tosh.
Vann
Established Member
Good Lord Phil. Next you'll be claiming that Trump won the 2020 US election, or that Putin invaded Ukraine to protect the people of the Donbas!!...but I'll get the popcorn out.
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
I fear this is a gross simplification, and a poor analogy. Unless, of course, your body is partly covered in sheet ice(I'm fairly certain mine isn't, but there are regions that are difficult to inspect these days), which reflect the sun's rays, but will melt as your body temperature increases, thus accelerating the temperature rise. And a bunch of other stuff that I can't even be bothered to bring up.
Maybe thermal runaway in semiconductors would be a better analogy?
Keith Cocker
Established Member
Three “facts”:
1. The world’s climate has changed very significantly in the last 100 years.
2. That change has been caused by human activity.
3. The consequences of that change are negative for humanity.
If you don’t accept that those three things are true you are an idiot.
Goodbye
1. The world’s climate has changed very significantly in the last 100 years.
2. That change has been caused by human activity.
3. The consequences of that change are negative for humanity.
If you don’t accept that those three things are true you are an idiot.
Goodbye
I wasn’t aware of that so I did a google search on why the terminology changed. There is no evidence that this is the reason. Can you provide a link to the source of this?
Yes plants will grow faster in a CO2 rich environment, but that won’t stop sea level rise, increased storm magnitude, desertification in some regions etc.
@John Brown Not really, it’s just an insulator, but, what gets forgotten all gases in the atmosphere are also insulators. CO2 is at a level of circa 0.04% so no much, and we have increased that level throughout the last century by (round numbers) 0.01% since 1960. Lets put it into context, the wired has been up at over 3% are flurushedm was far greener with a greater diversity of life. Increase in CO2 are not catastrophic. Dropping CO2 levels dish to c0.02% which is where we were heading is catastrophic.
Interested to see the source of your claim that just stop oil are funded by the oil companies?
Don’t confuse biological sex and gender, gender is a sociological construct, biological sex a scientific fact. There are more than two sexes, a very small percentage are born intersex, however I understand that is not related to you point. The gender question is a whole separate debate with a very different data set as it is difficult to objectively measure someone’s gender.
