Climate Change

[carmanmemoranda]

That has all been talked about on here before and debunked - in that its happened before and faster and without the help of volcanos

Never been debunked, just attempted and failed

 

[aveatry]

Never been debunked, just attempted and failed

You were schooled on the topic - go back and read if you have forgotten.

 

[IT Minion]

That has all been talked about on here before and debunked - in that its happened before and faster and without the help of volcanos

No it hasn't.

As long as by Volcanos you're excluding massive and pretty obvious geological events.

But rather than relying on the discussions on a web site, pay attention to people who study it professionally. They've looked into this line of argument and found it to be *******s.

 

[noseall]

That has all been talked about on here before and debunked

By whom?

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

There's enough info out there if you want to find it

Sure there is, for the gullible.

 

[aveatry]

By whom?

You are just wasting my time now - go and read back yourself - you probably missed it at the time because you were digging a hole somewhere. Everyone will be glad when it thaws out and you can go and dig some more holes again and give us all a rest

 

[IT Minion]

Sure there is, for the gullible.

Do you consider 97% of the world's climate scientists to be the gullible?

Aveatry seems to be promoting the 'its not man-made and it'll be a good thing' narrative. Which is wrong on both points and has been analysed to death.

 

[noseall]

You are just wasting my time now - go and read back yourself - you probably missed it at the time because you were digging a hole somewhere. Everyone will be glad when it thaws out and you can go and dig some more holes again and give us all a rest

I'll wait....

 

[aveatry]

Do you consider 97% of the world's climate scientists to be the gullible?

Not that 20 year old chestnut again

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/

 

[Odds]

You were schooled on the topic - go back and read if you have forgotten.

you mean, you posted unverified piffle and scurried off when faced with the facts.

 

[aveatry]

you mean, you posted unverified piffle and scurried off when faced with the facts.

You mean you didn’t read any of it but still feel qualified to comment on it -

 

[johnny2007]

But its not such a bad thing for humans either.
Throughout man's history warmer times led to great prosperity and innovation, the medieval warm period allowed for longer growing seasons agricultural surpluses and population growth which in turn supported cultural achievements like the building of Gothic cathedrals and the rise of universities, trade expanded cities flourished and societies had the resources to invest in art philosophy and technology.
In contrast colder periods were often disastrous the little ice age brought shorter growing seasons failed harvests and famine, europe was struck by the great famine of 1315 during which millions starved due to relentless cold societal unrest grew economies shrank and in many regions innovation stalled cold harsh climates didn't just make life harder they made Civilization more fragile. Be careful what you wish for.

Shut up!
The leftist don't want to hear truths!

Basically, the climate is doing, what the climate has always done throughout history - changed. Nowt much we do, will prevent it, learn to accept it.

You too.
Shut up!

It's the speed of change that's the issue

It's all my fault for driving an Audi for 7 years.

You were schooled on the topic - go back and read if you have forgotten.

Leftists tactics: they get educated, disappear, leave a few pages to go by and then re-appear with the same failed arguments.
It's a methodical way they probably teach in leftists courses.

 

[IT Minion]

Not that 20 year old chestnut again

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/

Forbes is not a peer reviewed scientific journal and the author is a retired oil executive.

The author also agrees that the consensus amongst inate scientists is very strong, even if it quibbles over wether the actual support might be as low as only 84% depending on which study you look at. That's not saying 97% is wrong, just that different studies with different setups on a similar question get different results.

The paper gets repeated every few years and holds true.

 

[IT Minion]

Shut up!
The leftist don't want to hear truths!

You too.
Shut up!

It's all my fault for driving an Audi for 7 years.

Leftists tactics: they get educated, disappear, leave a few pages to go by and then re-appear with the same failed arguments.
It's a methodical way they probably teach in leftists courses.

You didn't do much science in school did you?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

You were schooled on the topic - go back and read if you have forgotten.

Not forgotten

Just never seen any debunking thats accurate