Climate Change

[Highway Man]

Eh?

He means, Ruby, Ruby, Ruby. He gets terribly confused.

 

[Northman]

There isn't really much debate. Some are sceptics but the science is clear.

There is always debate in science. There is not just one 'science' in the area of climate; there is a huge range of ideas and opinions. Anyone who tells you otherwise is actually trying to stifle debate - and thereby stifle 'science'.

 

[Highway Man]

There is always debate in science. There is not just one 'science' in the area of climate; there is a huge range of ideas and opinions. Anyone who tells you otherwise is actually trying to stifle debate - and thereby stifle 'science'.

Sceptics are good in my opinion

 

[Northman]

But I am not going to read 151 pages. I would doubt that you have.

I have read it all, and looked up many of the references. Its actually quite a short report as these things go, and quite accessible to an educated layman. I have also read the full Working group 1 reports of IPCC AR5 and 6 which amount to many thousands of pages and form the main reference body of science in this field.

 

[aveatry]

Sceptics are good in my opinion

Nah William says the science is settled
See

The debate is settled on man made climate change. Find a new topic.

 

[denso13]

"Trump Taps Climate Skeptics to Attack Science on Global Warming"

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/31/climate/trump-climate-skeptics-science-report.html

"Contrarian climate assessment from U.S. government draws swift pushback"

https://www.science.org/content/article/contrarian-climate-assessment-u-s-government-draws-swift-pushback

 

[MNW67]

I have also read the full Working group 1 reports of IPCC AR5 and 6 which amount to many thousands of pages and form the main reference body of science in this field.

That's very impressive.

What was your conclusion.

 

[Munroast]

Sceptics are good in my opinion

even the ones who think the earth is flat - which is not too dissimilar to denying climate change, or being an anti-vaxer (is that something to do with whovering )

 

[aveatry]

even the ones who think the earth is flat - which is not too dissimilar to denying climate change, or being an anti-vaxer (is that something to do with whovering )

This is a common debunker trick - try and discredit by association with nonsense

 

[Munroast]

utter fecking nonsense - its on its way and you know it - get your self a house on high ground with a good roof and enjoy the wild weather that is on its way - things are a changing

 

[Odds]

Who put 50 pence in the dick head “noseall” ?

He can waffle ****, and as far as I can tell, he’s the only poster who continues to quote his own quotes

What’s the first sign of being crazy ?

 

[MNW67]

I have read it all, and looked up many of the references. Its actually quite a short report as these things go, and quite accessible to an educated layman. I have also read the full Working group 1 reports of IPCC AR5 and 6 which amount to many thousands of pages and form the main reference body of science in this field.

Anyway, it's nice to have an expert from the sceptical side to chat with. What did you think about this info on water vapour posted last night. I am aware that it is one of the more confusing parts of the whole debate:

I came across this, very sensible, and rational post in a newsgroup, posted by someone using the name 'Indy Jess John'. I hope he doesn't object to my reposting it here...

'I did a bit of digging a few weeks ago, and I discovered that the global warming claim for CO2 is because it blocks certain wavelengths of infrared from escaping into space. The same source of information also pointed out that water vapour also blocks a range of wavelengths of infrared, spanning and a bit wider than the range that CO2 blocks. There is many times as much water vapour than there is CO2 in the atmosphere. It varies by location from almost zero across the polar ice to maxima over rain forests, but the global average is at least 10 times as much as CO2. So even if the amount of CO2 doubles it would make only an insignificant contribution to global warming yet it would considerably improve crop yields.

The reason why CO2 was made the villain is because humans can do nothing about water vapour but they can be blamed for CO2; and that power allows governments to impose "green" taxes or legislate controls on behaviour and have the mugs who pay for it happy to do so to save the planet.'

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Nothing wrong with having both sides represented.

But are we still denying climate is changing?

 

[denso13]

Nothing wrong with having both sides represented.

But are we still denying climate is changing?

They could have chosen a more balanced authorship, but it is to justify Trump's fossil fuel policies so that was never going to happen.

 

[MNW67]

They could have chosen a more balanced authorship, but it is to justify Trump's fossil fuel policies so that was never going to happen.

Meanwhile, Trump has sacked hundreds of government scientists who were working on the real report and has banished all previous reports to an obscure website that hardly anybody will ever find.

“Those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future.”