Haha. How are the dinosaurs going?
IS that cheaper on a per output basis or on a per plant basis?
Its a lot more expensive to build an aircraft carrier than a rubber dinghy but if we to go to war then I know which one I would rather have.
You could ask yourself.
4 Likes
You two, yeah you know who, youāre a couple of old farts arenāt you? I hope so. I really hope so.
Well Mr Wolf, if any of my actions stop you posting your ignorant nonsense then my job is done.
Stick to football; seems that politics, science and social responsibility is far beyond your capacity.
No such luck. Did you end up getting that bunker?
I donāt think climate change deniers are a problem. There is such a complete absence of credibility in their position that they would have little impact if the rest of the world decided to take genuine action.
However if there are 7 billion people on Earth, I think there are 6.5+ billion with no real interest in making the level of change to their lifestyles needed to significantly reduce the human contribution. Many of these 6.5b live in poverty so itās understandable why they only focus on the short term. The 6.5 billion also includes most government officials some of whom manage enormous economies.
There would be 100 different reasons which people use to avoid change including the popular ones that we humans are clever and will innovate our way around this problem; or that markets eventually fix everything. I think the behavioural issues around avoiding change are far more dangerous than the loonies.
2 Likes
A lot has changed since the dinosaurs. An Earth Day was at least an hour shorter, for starters.
1 Like
Agree and it continues to change regardless of people and their nasty fossil fuels.
Half right, guess which
I am not the bunker type, in fact you are a lot like Archie Bunker.
And that is your one and only āargumentā - that CC occurs naturally (duh), therefore cannot be impacted by human activity. You could drive a truck thru that logic. But you use it to justify taking a strong position against AGW while ignoring the evidence & research to the contrary.
And whenever you are challenged to substantiate your āargumentā with actual evidence that shows human activity is not impacting CC, you go quiet and provide nothing. So you have no credibility on this thread. You think people are threatened by you, but really you just embarrass yourself.
4 Likes
I thought this was an interesting article:
Mmmmmm wouldnāt mind dabbling in a bit of light climate engineering.
WHAT COULD GO WRONG???
As we did see from the Essendon saga the ability to prove something has not happened is very difficult which is 1 reason why traditional law does not use this burden of proof.
The overwhelming evidence is that the climate has been changing for millions of years. Therefore the burden of proof is on warmists to prove that any current changes are significantly influenced by people. This is something they have failed to do and this is evidenced by the many doomsday predictions that have not eventuated.
Garbage.
Man, I could teach an entire class on dishonest denialist ādebatingā tactics using just you as an exhibit. Or run denier bingo, if I preferred. Youāre an absolutely classic case.
Denier: climate scientists predictions are wrong!
Me: They are much much closer to correct than denier predictions, and hereās the graph to prove it
Denier #2: Your graph only starts at 1990, so Iām going to pretend it never happened. Plus, Gen Y!
Well, duh. The graph is about PREDICTIONS. Climate didnāt start in 1990, but a lot of the climate models whose predictions weāre trying to compare werenāt around before then. And, just to reiterate, the denialistsā predictions have been proven to be utter tosh while those of the IPCC etc have reflected reality much more closely.
Me: 30-50 of the Great Barrier reef has died within the past two years.
Denier: Youāre saying the reef will be gone in 2 years!
No Iām not. Iām saying that ā¦ drumroll ā¦ 30-50% has died in the past two years, which is ENTIRELY uncontroversial. Are you seriously saying that this is NOT a massive and abrupt change that bodes ill for the future of the reef? If you think this is not particularly serious, what percentage do you think would be a genuine concern?
So, weāve got all the Climate Reality Denier greatest Hits here, really. Weāve got misrepresenting what science is predicting, weāve got misinterpreting graphs, weāve got chucking a wobbly about those young gen Y whippersnappers, weāve got sturdily Luddite bleats of āthe world is old and who knows what goes on amirite?ā that blithely ignore entire fields of scientific knowledge, and weāve got bad-faith wagers. I suppose you canāt get any mileage out of the time-tested āitās been cooling since 1998!ā or āwarming pause!ā lines any more since over the last few years theyāve been proven to be the utter fiction that real scientists told you they were all along. But jeez, your post is only missing a jab at Al Goreās travel schedule or a ritualistic chant of āia ia CO2 is plant food fātaghnā before I get to yell out ābingoā and win the meat trayā¦
10 Likes
And thatās why you offer nothing but an empty thought bubble. You canāt / wonāt substantiate your āargumentā.
On the other hand, there is the primary school science of the greenhouse effect and the overwhelming evidence of accellerated warming as a result.
Iād think Iād rather pay attention to people who actually know what they are talking about.
The fact that the strength of the greenhouse effect is influenced by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (and the rough strength of this influence) has been known since Svante Arrhenius over a hundred years ago. The fact that human activity is increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is also uncontroversial and well-established. The fact that global temperatures are rising at an increasing rate over the past few decades is also plain, as can clearly be seen every time a denier pretends they never got excited about how āthe world has been cooling since 1998!ā
We have a thorough physical understanding of the processes by which CO2 influences the greenhouse effect. We have a reliable measure of atmospheric CO2 going back decades (and a vast array of data about solar activity, albedo, ocean acidification, deep-water temperatures etc that we can correct for as the world is a very big and complicated system thatās hard to model). We have temperature measurements also going back decades that reveal significant warming. In scientific terms, thatās the theory, the experiment, and the results that support the theory.
Tell me. You say that you think science has failed to prove AGW. Personally, i think youāre dogmatically stuck on your current opinion and are beyond the reach of proof. But Iām a reasonable man, so Iāll give you the chance to prove me wrong. If youāve formed your opinions purely based on scientific evidence, then surely you can tell me what proof (or proofs) WOULD you need, exactly, for scientists to produce that would make you change you mind?
5 Likes
You wonāt get an answer
4 Likes
7.1 billionā¦
7.2 billionā¦
7.3 billionā¦etcā¦
The factor barely discussed by even those calling for climate change action.
2 Likes