The Weather

[dns1]

It is complicated. Without greenhouse gases the earth would be a ball of ice. The argument is that the extra CO2 we have produced has added an additional warming effect which has affected the natural balance.

But previously the "natural balance" has involved far more CO2 anyway...

I'm not someone who hates the planet, I'm obsessive when it comes to waste and recycling and I've always done absolutely everything I can for the environment.

I just don't believe that this insane "climate change" agenda can be solved by us paying more taxes and building more wind farms!

 

[berty3000]

.The argument is that the extra CO2 we have produced has added an additional warming effect which has affected the natural balance.

Omg...

 

[JonathanM]

But previously the "natural balance" has involved far more CO2 anyway...

And the world was much warmer.

The atmospheric CO2 concentration was however higher in Earth's more distant past (many millions of years ago), at which time palaeoclimatic and geological data indicate that temperatures and sea levels were also higher than they are today.

I just don't believe that this insane "climate change" agenda can be solved by us paying more taxes and building more wind farms!

It's so simple! Greenhouse gases have a universally accepted (by real scientists, anyway) warming effect. We have put billions and billions of tonnes of extra greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Therefore, the warming effect is greater. The only way to stop the warming is to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we produce.

 

[JonathanM]

Omg...

Have you been drinking, Berty? You seemed to understand it this afternoon.

 

[JonathanM]

Let me explain it another way. Say your house loses 10 kW of heat. And you have a 10kW boiler. Your house will stay at a constant temperature. But if you fit a 12kW boiler, the house will increase in temperature. It's that bit extra that is throwing out the balance.

 

[dns1]

And the world was much warmer.





It's so simple! Greenhouse gases have a universally accepted (by real scientists, anyway) warming effect. We have put billions and billions of tonnes of extra greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Therefore, the warming effect is greater. The only way to stop the warming is to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we produce.

We aren't producing anywhere near the same amounts of CO2 that volcanic activity did a few thousand years ago...

We certainly aren't going to reduce our CO2 emissions by building wind turbines and solar panels (which always have to be backed up by gas or coal power stations) or by increasing tax on people who need to use cars!

 

[berty3000]

Have you been drinking, Berty? You seemed to understand it this afternoon.

You are stating the obvious and seem to think you are the only person who understands this idea. So all along, when you were playing the reasonable card and engaging in discussion, you were really just building up to this spectacular moment where you state the obvious?

If the hypothesis is correct, why has it been much warmer in the past before humans? Do you understand what feedback mechanisms are? Have you considered all the other factors, in addition to green house gases, that might cause warming?

Here we are, back to the beginning again. Round and round in circles. Worrying about things you can't change.

In the future, long after the dead-end that is Jonathan has been reduced to dust and has been completely forgotten, the people won't be interested in the *******s you're fretting about. They will be alive and living, you will have been an unnamed nobody, part of some weird group from the past who believed the world was going to end because of carbon dioxide. You will be remembered the way "end is nigh" people will be.

Get a life, before it's too late!

 

[JonathanM]

We certainly aren't going to reduce our CO2 emissions by building wind turbines and solar panels

Why not? That seems an obvious way.

But my main interest is really finding out where people stand. Would you say you are someone who believes the earth is warming, and that greenhouse gases are the likely cause? But that you don't accept the grim scenarios of the effects that warming will have, put forward by the climate scientists?

 

[JonathanM]

So all along, when you were playing the reasonable card and engaging in discussion, you were really just building up to this spectacular moment where you state the obvious?

I don't think anything has changed. I was being reasonable and engaging in discussion. I really enjoy discussing science and finding out other people's beliefs.

 

[berty3000]

Why not? That seems an obvious way.

But my main interest is really finding out where people stand. Would you say you are someone who believes the earth is warming, and that greenhouse gases are the likely cause? But that you don't accept the grim scenarios of the effects that warming will have put forward by the climate scientists?

Disingenuous post.

 

[dns1]

Why not? That seems an obvious way.

But my main interest is really finding out where people stand. Would you say you are someone who believes the earth is warming, and that greenhouse gases are the likely cause? But that you don't accept the grim scenarios of the effects that warming will have put forward by the climate scientists?

Why not?!

Because the production of them creates massive amounts of Co2 and they have to be backed up by gas or coal anyway!

 

[JonathanM]

Disingenuous post.

I'm really sorry that's how you feel.

 

[JonathanM]

Why not?!

Because the production of them creates massive amounts of Co2 and they have to be backed up by gas or coal anyway!

But if the gas or coal is only used 25% of the time, that's a huge saving.

I'm also hoping nuclear fusion will be part of the answer. There seem to have been breakthroughs recently.

 

[berty3000]

Whatever happened to this guy?

He was on TV a lot and was very well regarded when I was a child but seemed to disappear, almost as though he were assasinated, for having a perfectly reasonable opinion.

Why is it necessary to destroy the lives of people who have opinions that differ? If he is wrong on this particular topic, why can't he just be wrong about it and be left alone or, better still, be invited to discuss the matter and have his mind changed, or allow others to form their own opinions by observing the discussion?

No, this normal process, that would occur in an open, honest and free society doesn't seem to be possible. And so we have endless gaslighting instead. Which many of us see through and are not foold by. In fact, it absolutely undermines the alarmist narrative. It screams weakness, fear and dishonesty.

 

[JonathanM]

Why is it necessary to destroy the lives of people who have opinions that differ? If he is wrong on this particular topic, why can't he just be wrong about it and be left alone or, better still, be invited to discuss the matter and have his mind changed, or allow others to form their own opinions by observing the discussion?

I agree. I don't actually know what happened to him in the end. I used to really like his programmes growing up.