Climate Change is here and man made

malg said:
Climate change is a pile of shite. Just made up bollocks by bored academic wankers with fuck all better to do.
Click to expand...

I hope you weren't given millions to do that research ha ha I take it thats a personal opinion?
 
nimrod said:
I watched Brian Cox on telly here recently completly destroy a politician who had the same view as you.
I don't have a fiftieth of his knowledge though so don't expect me to repeat it, I believe him though...
Click to expand...
Well you shouldn't. He knows fuck all about climate science because that's not his field - he's just jumping on the bandwagon. He is not in any way qualified to give any expert opinion.

Very bizarrely, I am more qualified than him. At least I studied atmospheric physics for my degree and I got an A in my maths and physics A levels, unlike his D.

Sent from my SM-N930F using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Chippy_boy said:
Well you shouldn't. He knows fuck all about climate science because that's not his field - he's just jumping on the bandwagon. He is not in any way qualified to give any expert opinion.

Very bizarrely, I am more qualified than him. At least I studied atmospheric physics for my degree and I got an A in my maths and physics A levels, unlike his D.

Sent from my SM-N930F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I got a c in my psychology A-Level, 2:1 in degree, distinction in masters, also have a doctorate and would say most of my students probably have better A-Level results (at a guess), I would say mastering a subject comes over time, however, jumping on the bandwagon in a field which is not his own and then saying he knows fuck all.... Come on now...
 
Chippy_boy said:
Well you shouldn't. He knows fuck all about climate science because that's not his field - he's just jumping on the bandwagon. He is not in any way qualified to give any expert opinion.

Very bizarrely, I am more qualified than him. At least I studied atmospheric physics for my degree and I got an A in my maths and physics A levels, unlike his D.

Sent from my SM-N930F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I suspect his researchers are better than yours tho.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Well you shouldn't. He knows fuck all about climate science because that's not his field - he's just jumping on the bandwagon. He is not in any way qualified to give any expert opinion.

Very bizarrely, I am more qualified than him. At least I studied atmospheric physics for my degree and I got an A in my maths and physics A levels, unlike his D.

Sent from my SM-N930F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Bet you've got a big dick as well :)
 
aguero93:20 said:
You know the industrial revolution had been in full swing for more than half a century by 1895?
Click to expand...

Of course. But anthropogenic CO2 emissions from fossil-fuels didn't become potentially consequential until about 1950. That's why the IPCC only claims to be; “95% certain that humans are the “dominant cause” of global warming since the 1950s.”

As such, one could argue the Global Warming began in “the 1950s”. However, if you look at the Met Office – Hadley Center HadCRUT4 Global Surface Temperature record for the last 163 years you can see that temperatures didn’t warm during the 1950s, nor the 60s:

1479812253.png


In fact it was not until about 1975 that temperatures began to rise. As such, one could argue that Global Warming began in approximately 1975.

However, in 2010 Phil Jones was asked by the Beeb: “Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?” Phil Jones responded that,”Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different. I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998. So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.”

Science, huh?
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
25 per cent of Bangladesh is less than 1 m above sea level. Half the country is less than 6m above sea level. So quite low lying, I would have thought.
Click to expand...

Couldn't have told you the figures, but it's not exactly a secret that there's an awful lot of people at almost sea level there.
Maybe the climate change conspiracists have changed the way sea level is measured and no-one's noticed!
 
Chippy_boy said:
And how much damage has that done so far? Nil, none, nada. The comment made above was about all the problems happening NOW and there are none.
Click to expand...

Um, sure about that? Pretty certain that there's been a rise in sea level which affects some countries. I generally think planning for the future is a good idea rather than seeing what happens and then trying to change something which will take many years to change.

Chippy_boy said:
Wrong. We aren't dealing with "a tree" are we. We are dealing with ALL plant life - algae, grass, trees, moss, etc. More CO2 is good for plants. Again, do a bit of googling.
Click to expand...

I don't need to google for that. Anyway, google will just throw up opinions and data, with whatever interpretation someone chooses to put on it.
Assume 'a tree' is a metaphor for all plant life.
Are CO2 levels increasing? I'm fairly certain the answer is 'yes'.
If CO2 levels are increasing, then the plant life level, no matter how prosperous it is, is not consuming enough CO2 to stop it increasing. Why is that likely to change?

Chippy_boy said:
You've obviously bought the scaremongering party line, hook line and sinker. But if you sit back and have a think for yourself, you might find the process rather enlightening. How bad would it actually be if sea levels were 30 cm higher in 100 years? And what if the world was 2C warmer? What if CO2 levels are an indicator of global temperature and not a driver of it? What if the sun is actually behind our periodic swings in climate that happen all the time? What if the earth is actually a balanced and stable system that self-regulates, as evidenced by the fact that we have a habitable environment some 10,000,000,000 years after the planet was formed, and were it unstable it would have gone the way of the moon, or Mars or Venus 9.000.000.000 years ago. Take a pause for thought rather than just believing whatever the media pump out at you.
Click to expand...

Why do you find it necessary to be condescending and insulting? It's not a very good way to conduct a debate.
Um, 30 cm on sea level would have quite a lot of impact on the world - an awful lot of people live close to sea level. 2 degrees warmer would mean land turning to desert, and the bits that thaw out aren't generally very fertile as a result of being in permafrost.

I subscribe to the idea that there is something that can be done. It might work, and will certainly be better than doing nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top