COP26 progress or same old

[DrPhill]

Oh, and have a look at how water provides an automatic cooling response across the oceans - a far more important and much more prevalent greenhouse gas than CO2 that self - regulates surface sea temperatures absolutely everywhere. As just one example of how fabulous water molecules are, did you know that it is virtually impossible for the sea temperature to increase above 32°C? You just get an instant tropical thunderstorm and surface cooling, with lots of heat transported to the upper atmosphere and radiated out to space. It's all very clever, and works automatically. They even keep it running at the weekends anywhere there is water.

Your evidence is?

You are entitled to your opinions. But if you make unsubstantiated claims then I am entitled to challenge them.

 

[Chris152]

Nothing to do with me I just guess that the opinion of 99% of the worlds scientists is probably nearer the truth than opinions of D Bellamy and one or two other CC denying eccentrics.

Agree.
Once again, a potentially interesting discussion is reduced to 'it's not real' etc. Bizarre how people with little or no knowledge think their opinion outweighs overwhelming consensus among the scientific communities. Such is the delusional wonder of the internet.

 

[Jacob]

..... not sharing your opinion - for that's all it is - on climate change does not make me wrong.....

No it is not all it is. You also are choosing to disbelief the science, for no obvious reason, which begs the question - are you really claiming "a lifetime of scientific study and qualification"?

 

[Trainee neophyte]

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2018/warming-stripes/

I wouldn't dream of suggesting that it hasn't warmed up. Your stripes start in 1772 when it was cold - the little ice age and all that. Thank god it did warm up because that way we stopped having revolutions and resource wars, and started the industrial revolution instead, so we could have proper, modern, mechanised resource wars. Humans - what can you do with them?

And your evidence is?

Freely available to any who choose to look.

In other words, there is no point turning this thread into a cage fight when I don't actually care enough one way or the other. I leave that to the proselytising born - again alarmists. Who still, incidentally, don't seem to want to consider the consequences to their actions.

You are entitled to your opinions. But if you make unsubstantiated claims then I am entitled to challenge them.

Challenge away - that's how science works (supposedly). However, you can see from those who read the Guardian that the science is settled, temperatures are spiralling out of control, there will be divers floods and rains of blood and fishes, ash will fall from the sky and...{insert your own catastrophic endtimes prophesy here}, and if you don't believe all that, you are just..well...completely wrong. And stupid. And probably a Nazi, to boot.

Having done this all before a couple of years ago, I don't see the point in going there again. I'm not religious about all this so it is just interesting. There are actually scientists who question the settled science, and have different hypotheses, but you have to look hard to find any prepared to raise their heads above the parapet. I will leave you to research on your own, if you want to. Entirely up to you.

 

[stuartpaul]

Could we not just superglue Jacob and TN together and then glue them to the road? At least then they’d have some use as a speedbump!

 

[Keith Cocker]

Says you, based on a lifetime of scientific study and qualification in precisely what?

Says hundreds of Scientists based on extremely well respected careers and study.

 

[Jacob]

Says hundreds of Scientists based on extremely well respected careers and study.

Exactly. And if Lonsdale73 really has a lifetime of scientific study and qualification it doesn't mean he is entitled to believe any old rubbish off the top of his head.

 

[Tris]

All the debate about anthropogenic climate change is fairly pointless. The planet is still operating within the limits of previous extremes as far as we can tell.

Population dynamics would suggest we are likely to use up available resources or fall to the next pandemic long before the only bits of the planet that is habitable by humans are the poles.

 

[Jacob]

...... There are actually scientists who question the settled science, and have different hypotheses, but you have to look hard to find any prepared to raise their heads above the parapet. .......

Really? I thought they were not timid at all, in fact very vocal. There are even creationists amongst them!
And science is never quite "settled" it's a continuous process and may involve future paradigm shifts.

 

[Jones]

All the debate about anthropogenic climate change is fairly pointless. The planet is still operating within the limits of previous extremes as far as we can tell.

Population dynamics would suggest we are likely to use up available resources or fall to the next pandemic long before the only bits of the planet that is habitable by humans are the poles.

The debate about anthropogenic climate change is relevant because if we did it there's a chance we can undo it. Certainly current climate variations are small compared to geological past but then humans could not survive in many of those conditions.

 

[Lonsdale73]

Exactly. And if Lonsdale73 really has a lifetime of scientific study and qualification it doesn't mean he is entitled to believe any old rubbish off the top of his head.

I wasn't making any such claim, I was querying precisely what makes you qualified to assert that your opinion is the right one? If you cannot interpret that accurately then how on earth can you be trusted to interpret scientific data correctly? And you are 100% wrong with regards to my entitlement to believe whatever I damn well like and in this instance I side with the scientests who dispute climate change is as bad as is being made out.

 

[Jacob]

I wasn't making any such claim, I was querying precisely what makes you qualified to assert that your opinion is the right one? If you cannot interpret that accurately then how on earth can you be trusted to interpret scientific data correctly? And you are 100% wrong with regards to my entitlement to believe whatever I damn well like and in this instance I side with the scientests who dispute climate change is as bad as is being made out.

OK so you are saying that 99% (apparently) of the world's scientists are not interpreting scientific data correctly. Have you told them?

PS what do you think of the latest gloomy 2.4º forecast?
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-at-24c-reality-check-prompts-dismay-at-cop26Are they wrong? Have you spotted incorrect interpretations of scientific data?
The whole world would be very pleased and highly relieved to hear from you, if things really aren't as bad as they say.

 

[John Brown]

https://xkcd.com/1732/I know I've posted this before, but to be fair, pretty much everything in this thread has also been said many times.

 

[John Brown]

Yes, it shows correlation but not causation. It could be that non-anthropogenic warming somehow induces a desire to burn fossil fuels. Just like having a genetic predisposition to lung cancer also carries an increased desire to smoke cigarettes.
I'm not a gambling man, but if I were, I know which way I'd bet.

 

[John Brown]

He was silence by the arguments, live on tv, by George Monbiot.

That's embarrassing to watch. On a level with the best of Hitch.

 

[Jacob]

That's embarrassing to watch. On a level with the best of Hitch.

Poor old Bellamy just sounds senile and demented

 

[DrPhill]

I am not fond of ad-hominem attacks, but if he is their best proponent.....

TN suggests that there are plenty of scientists that deny climate change:

There are actually scientists who question the settled science, and have different hypotheses, but you have to look hard to find any prepared to raise their heads above the parapet.

But neglects to mention any names. Does not seem any more persuasive than David Bellamy, I am afraid.

 

[Spectric]

But who is paying these scientist their wages, maybe they are in the oil & gas industry but anyone with the ability of basic comprehension can only conclude that the human race must be having an impact on the planet, just maybe not the exact outcome. Perhaps the cycle of come and go is what it is all about, you get a time slot on the planet and then when the time is up you become extinct to make room for the next inhabitants, so dinosaurs, humans then what!

 

[Jacob]

But who is paying these scientist their wages, ....

There aren't really many of them about.
Coal/oil interests were fighting hard and bringing out false science not so long ago but even they have changed their tune.

 

[Jacob]

I wasn't making any such claim, I was querying precisely what makes you qualified to assert that your opinion is the right one? If you cannot interpret that accurately then how on earth can you be trusted to interpret scientific data correctly? And you are 100% wrong with regards to my entitlement to believe whatever I damn well like and in this instance I side with the scientests who dispute climate change is as bad as is being made out.

Who are these scientists and where can we read them?
There's Piers Corbyn. Is that it then? Piers Corbyn disrupts climate debate featuring brother Jeremy
He's also anti vaccination, Covid sceptic and voted for brexit!
Being several sandwiches short of a picnic seems to be par for the course!!