German Police

[carmanmemoranda]

So tell me how much climate tax will it take to stop this --
View attachment 342810

Relevant ?

 

[denso13]

So tell me how much climate tax will it take to stop this --

None. I don't think we're planning to restrict solar storms anytime soon...

 

[noseall]

So tell me how much climate tax will it take to stop this --
View attachment 342810

You mean pay people to run the protective atmosphere? I think they'd take umbrage at all the shít we throw at it from this side.

 

[aveatry]

Relevant ?

None. I don't think we're planning to restrict solar storms anytime soon...

The relevance is there are external forces and cycles that control the earths climate which we have no control of and no amount of climate tax will change such as earths precession and Milankovitch cycles and even neutrinos from exploding stars billions of light years away.

 

[denso13]

The relevance is there are external forces and cycles that control the earths climate which we have no control of and no amount of climate tax will change such as earths precession and Milankovitch cycles and even neutrinos from exploding stars billions of light years away.

Yes there are. But we just made it worse by our actions.

 

[JonathanM]

The relevance is there are external forces and cycles that control the earths climate which we have no control of and no amount of climate tax will change such as earths precession and Milankovitch cycles and even neutrinos from exploding stars billions of light years away.

We are talking about timescales of tens of thousands of years. It cannot possibly explain the recent rise in temperature. You seem to have swallowed the deniers' handbook! Unless you really are more worried about what might happen in 50,000 years time than what is happening right now

What I have noticed with these recent discussions, is that denier are very reluctant to have a proper debate about the basic underlying science. They seem to give up very quickly, then come back with yet another discredited theory.

First, Milankovitch cycles operate on long time scales, ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. In contrast, Earth’s current warming has taken place over time scales of decades to centuries. Over the last 150 years, Milankovitch cycles have not changed the amount of solar energy absorbed by Earth very much. In fact, NASA satellite observations show that over the last 40 years, solar radiation has actually decreased somewhat.

 

[aveatry]

What I have noticed with these recent discussions, is that denier are very reluctant to have a proper debate about the basic underlying science. They seem to give up very quickly, then come back with yet another discredited theory.

Says the man who was schooled by Aveatry on Hydroelectric power -- Jonathan who until Aveatry told him knew nothing about Hydroelectric releasing CO2 and methane. So much so that he went on a google fest to find more about it and started his very own thread on it -- like it was his idea all along.

​

 

[JonathanM]

Says the man who was schooled by Aveatry on Hydroelectric power -- Jonathan who until Aveatry told him knew nothing about Hydroelectric releasing CO2 and methane. So much so that he went on a google fest to find more about it and started his very own thread on it

Why does that matter? All that proves is that I enjoy a proper discussion. I'm not here to win an argument or prove how clever I am.

like it was his idea all along

I referenced you in the first line of my thread!

Yet again, though, I notice like other deniers you are unwilling to discuss the basic underlying science of global warming.

 

[aveatry]

But I am not a denier though.

 

[JonathanM]

But I am not a denier though.

I suppose denial covers a variety of positions. I posted something along those lines earlier in this thread.

Would you, for example, agree that the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, and that the great majority of this warming is caused by an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

 

[aveatry]

I suppose denial covers a variety of positions. I posted something along those lines earlier in this thread.

Would you, for example, agree that the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, and that the great majority of this warming is caused by an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

No

 

[JonathanM]

No

That would probably count as denial to most people.

It might be better if you state what you actually do believe.

 

[aveatry]

There are parts of your statement that I do not accept and parts that I do, its just that I do not accept it in its entirety. And either way who are you to set the parameters that decide who is a so-called "denier".

 

[carmanmemoranda]

The relevance is there are external forces and cycles that control the earths climate which we have no control of and no amount of climate tax will change such as earths precession and Milankovitch cycles and even neutrinos from exploding stars billions of light years away.

But you are not comparing RATE of change.

Why not ?

 

[JonathanM]

There are parts of your statement that I do not accept and parts that I do, its just that I do not accept it in its entirety.

I realised that, which is why to take the discussion forward, I suggested you lay out what you actually believe.

And either way who are you to set the parameters that decide who is a so-called "denier".

I basically laid out the main proposition for global warming and you said you didn't agree with it. Many people would class this as "denial" on the basis that you are denying the basic proposition. But maybe there is a better word. I am much more interested in the first point above.