Protesters

[hilts]

How do you explain the Loch Lomond readvance? Global warming occurs for sure but so does global cooling. Mankind is resourceful enough to survive.

All of mankind? Other species? The general enviroment we live in?

I’m sure Manchester and most of the UK will survive for quite a while. Yippee

 

[aguero93:20]

Well although there's a huge consensus who agree with you, there's also many scientists who know a lot more about it than you or I, who do not. So I am guessing they have their reasons.

Who's funding them?

 

[Chippy_boy]

Who's funding them?

Sure there's some lobbying been going on. On both sides actually. (Have you any idea how much research funding is poured into climate science?)

But to suggest everyone is bent, would be naive.

 

[Chippy_boy]

You'd know.

Actually, I would.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Your reaction says it all fella, hit a nerve did I?

Anyhow I hope the house prIce is stable, your shares are doing well and all those who don’t want to work themselves to death are taking your advice and finding another job.

No idea why you seem to want to make this debate about me? You've bugger-all idea about my personal circumstances to be honest, but anyway, moving on...

I am completely convinced that you do not believe the vast majority of scientists and have gone with the tiny minority because that’s what you actually believe.

As I said in a previous post, I think global warming is happening and I think man has very probably caused it. What I don't believe is that it is an impending catastrophe and that we face imminent extinction. Genuinely, I think it's over-hyped. Others may disagree, but that's my honest to god opinion on the matter.

I think the planet will manage perfectly fine, albeit with changes. There will be challenges and in other cases, actual benefits. People die of cold in their thousands ever winter, and maybe some of them won't die. I've no idea what will happen to areas which are currently desert and other arable, maybe this will switch around. But we'll cope. And in decades to come, when we have nuclear fusion and have stopped using fossil fuels altogether, maybe we'll have enormous carbon sequestration planets, removing CO2 on a global scale? Or perhaps decide that we don't need them.

I think prudence is called for. Panic and fearmongering, not so much, imo.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

How do you explain the Loch Lomond readvance? Global warming occurs for sure but so does global cooling. Mankind is resourceful enough to survive.

That’s the bar now is it? Whether mankind can manage to survive whatever damage we inflict upon the planet?

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

That’s the bar now is it? Whether mankind can manage to survive whatever damage we inflict upon the planet?

You could answer the question. Trouble is you cannot, the best minds in science cannot answer the question that I put to you. The fact that this occurred doesn't disprove that some climate change could be man made, but it proves without question that rapid climate change can occur without man made involvement.

Anyway let's rejoice in the rags losing and us playing them on Wednesday.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

You could answer the question. Trouble is you cannot, the best minds in science cannot answer the question that I put to you. The fact that this occurred doesn't disprove that some climate change could be man made, but it proves without question that rapid climate change can occur without man made involvement.

Anyway let's rejoice in the rags losing and us playing them on Wednesday.

I can answer in these terms: if we can’t answer the global warming question with any degree of certainty, then an over-abundance of caution would be highly prudent.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I can answer in these terms: if we can’t answer the global warming question with any degree of certainty, then an over-abundance of caution would be highly prudent.

I could go along with that.

To be honest, I think we're buggered in terms of changes we can make now anyway. I think we've produced too much CO2 already and practically speaking, we cannot stop producing it quickly enough, and even if we did, it would be too late. We're steering the most enormous supertanker here and it's been off course for perhaps a century. Were we to yank the wheel sharply round right now (and we can't) it would still end up miles off course.

We're reliant on either natural feedback mechanisms to stabilize temperatures before they come down (which may well happen since some of the feedback loops take place over decades or even centuries, so we've no real way of knowing yet. Or we'll have to introduce some technology we don't yet have, in order to take dramatic remedial action in the future. That's where I think we are at right now.

 

[hilts]

No idea why you seem to want to make this debate about me? You've bugger-all idea about my personal circumstances to be honest, but anyway, moving on...



As I said in a previous post, I think global warming is happening and I think man has very probably caused it. What I don't believe is that it is an impending catastrophe and that we face imminent extinction. Genuinely, I think it's over-hyped. Others may disagree, but that's my honest to god opinion on the matter.

I think the planet will manage perfectly fine, albeit with changes. There will be challenges and in other cases, actual benefits. People die of cold in their thousands ever winter, and maybe some of them won't die. I've no idea what will happen to areas which are currently desert and other arable, maybe this will switch around. But we'll cope. And in decades to come, when we have nuclear fusion and have stopped using fossil fuels altogether, maybe we'll have enormous carbon sequestration planets, removing CO2 on a global scale? Or perhaps decide that we don't need them.

I think prudence is called for. Panic and fearmongering, not so much, imo.

Haha climate change a bit shit but less night nurse