1. Visiting from the US? Why not try DIYnot.US instead? Click here to continue to DIYnot.US.
    Dismiss Notice

Climate change deniers

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by EddieM, 28 Aug 2017.

  1. Yes it does Wobs, but it's not absolute proof, but if you don't keep an open mind over it, then you might miss the evidence that points you in another direction.

    Sorry, but you can't say the balance of evidence still points to us being the cause, and also say that we know that's it's caused by us - these are what's know as contradictory statements.
     
  2. Sponsored Links
  3. wobs

    wobs

    Joined:
    20 Feb 2008
    Messages:
    1,275
    Thanks Received:
    36
    Location:
    Hull
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    It is a strawman argument, as the very premise of what you're asking is flawed. No one is suggesting there was not change before. Its that the rate of change is far greater than what should occur. Past changes have taken thousands of years. The dinosaurs took 10s of thousands of years to die out for example, after a meteor strike. There have been other causes (such as algae), but even those did not occur at this rate.
     
  4. Thank you. that is a logical answer and will definitely encourage me to look closer at this.
     
  5. A meteor strike would have killed them off in a few months at the most. The amount of dust thrown up into the atmosphere would have blotted out the sun, and caused the veigation to die off in a few weeks. The carnovors would have had a good food supply for few months, and they'd have easily found the carcases in the dark by the smell, but dying out over 10s of thousand of years would be a natural occurence. But Mitch's argument isn't a straw one I'm afraid. Whilst we may have accelerated this particular change, that still doesn't negate the fact that such changes have occured before, and the Earths either recovered, or gone back to normal. The real question, would be whether it could recover after a man made acceleration.

    The problem we have with the current scenario, is that the Earth considers time in the billions of years, whilst we work on shorter timescales, and weren't around when the earlier changes occured, so we can only speculate on what may have occured at the time.
     
  6. Judy in the sky

    Judy in the sky

    Joined:
    26 Sep 2016
    Messages:
    728
    Thanks Received:
    65
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    So, hypothetical question Nosey.. Imagine the scenario whereby you are an acknowledged Climate Change expert. There's a big conference taking place on the other side of the world. Do you..
    A, Book your airline tickets. (sod your carbon footprint)
    or
    B, Offer to take part via a video conference call from the comfort of your own office/living room? (Yep you are a conscientious person who cares about the planet we live on)
     
  7. wobs

    wobs

    Joined:
    20 Feb 2008
    Messages:
    1,275
    Thanks Received:
    36
    Location:
    Hull
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    I'll just leave this here:
    https://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/04/dinosaurs-werent-wiped-out-by-that-chicxulub-meteorite/

    It changed the global climate, which affected the habitats of animals throughout the world at that time.

    Also, further searches actually reveals that dinosaurs were already in decline prior to the impact.

    It is a strawman, as no one was suggesting there has been no previous change.

    We go by evidence not speculation (speculation has its uses, but then must be backed up with something). We have a whole range of evidence to look back in time (such as ice cores, and sediments) to see what happened in the past, and a whole range of scientific disciplines

    The impacts of climate change are wide ranging, and not simple. Yes the Earth may bounce back eventually, but if it causes a mass extinction due to us, and brings about climatic change faster than we or even nature are "used to", then that would be something we should endeavour to try to stop. Issues such as renewables tend to make the headlines, but there are other less headline grabbing things we need to do, such as using developing meadows, coppicing, changing agricultural practises, and of course nuclear power.

    Could the Earth recover? Do we really want to find out? Would we be better preventing the issue?
     
  8. The original thinking was that dionsoars died out due to the meteor strike, hence think that's what you were refering to, I then countered your assertion of 10s of thousands of years. But yes, the Dinasours were already dying out before that, I had come across the argument, but hadn't delved into it much.

    But although we have evidence, we are just really speculatinng on the meaning of that evidence.

    Reading start of that comment, I suspect we are fairly close in our thinking, but my contention is that if you only take the obvious and most shouted answer, then you close your mind to other possibilites. I have no problem going along with the reductions in CO2, but I think renewables aren't the answer, but they're being pushed becuase the debate has been shut down. And I agree completely and utterly with the end of your sentence, but because everyone has decided on what needs doing, those sort of strategies don't get the attention they need.

    The Earth will always recover, but whether the current species is here to see it, is another matter altogether. But that's another argument completely.
     
  9. EFLImpudence

    EFLImpudence

    Joined:
    7 Jul 2010
    Messages:
    32,556
    Thanks Received:
    3,532
    Location:
    Retired to:
    Country:
    Portugal
    Taking it as true (for the moment) that climate change is man made -

    If container ships put out more than all the cars, then stopping container ships - and aircraft - would seem to be a higher priority than changing to electric cars and led lamps (with all the polution that entails).

    As usual, it is only those who actually pay for the additional costs who have to make sacrifices and not those who profit from it.


    Please buy LED lamps and subsidise renewables so that we can run sporting activities at night.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  10. Sponsored Links
  11. noseall

    noseall

    Joined:
    2 Feb 2006
    Messages:
    38,403
    Thanks Received:
    2,466
    Location:
    Staffordshire
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    B - Every time. I would only travel if it were absolutely necessary and I certainly wouldn't go by row boat.
     
  12. Judy in the sky

    Judy in the sky

    Joined:
    26 Sep 2016
    Messages:
    728
    Thanks Received:
    65
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    You must be one on your own then Nosey. It seems most experts on climate change enjoy these conferences in the far flung parts of the world.
     
  13. Yes possibly, but if you'd mentioned the nearby ski slopes, or golf course, then he might just just book his flight. And that's not being hypocritical, just killing two birds with one stone.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. JohnD

    JohnD

    Joined:
    15 Nov 2005
    Messages:
    64,437
    Thanks Received:
    3,418
    Location:
    Greenock
    Country:
    Cook Islands
    And do they?

    more... what?
     
  15. noseall

    noseall

    Joined:
    2 Feb 2006
    Messages:
    38,403
    Thanks Received:
    2,466
    Location:
    Staffordshire
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Really? Why is that?
     
  16. Oh come on Noesall, you know that most of these people enjoy a free jollie, and I wonder if that's why they push the agenda so much.

    Sorry, CO2, and Yeeesss, they do. Try this, and it's one of the newer ones. I'm sure there's someone here that can translate the size of the engine.

    But
    • A large container ship engine has about 1,000 times more power than a family car.
    • A recent study by Lloyd’s Register found that the fuel efficiency of container ships (4,500 TEU capacity) has improved 35% between 1985 and 2008.
    • It is estimated that on average a container ship emits around 40 times less CO2 than a large freight aircraft and over three times less than a heavy truck.
    • Container shipping is estimated to be two and a half times more energy efficient than rail and 7 times more so than road.
    So the above facts, suggest that planes are even worse.
     
  17. EFLImpudence

    EFLImpudence

    Joined:
    7 Jul 2010
    Messages:
    32,556
    Thanks Received:
    3,532
    Location:
    Retired to:
    Country:
    Portugal
    I don't know. Someone else wrote it; hence my 'if'.
     
Sponsored Links
Loading...

Share This Page