1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Climate Crisis - Brian’s plan

Discussion in 'Personal' started by emerald52, Jan 23, 2020.

  1. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter



    There is nothing dubious about this video other than scientific fraud perpetrated by those you have placed your faith in.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2020
  2. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Where is your evidence that CO2 has caused any significant warming? Real unaltered temperature data please.
    Reducing CO2 emissions to pre-industrial levels will cause worldwide famine, millions/billions of deaths and chaos. Is that the type of plan you advocate?
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2020
  3. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    I have done this many times. I have even shown you how we know it's human CO2 from the isotopic content of the CO2 involved.

    You have nothing left, so you go back to an old argument. It's desperate stuff. Just get on board and start helping out.
     
  4. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    Stop trying to scare people. That's gibberish.
     
  5. Kandahar

    Kandahar Lead commenter

    !
     
  6. Nanook_rubs_it

    Nanook_rubs_it Star commenter

    I have a reasonable expectation that the various methodologies and analysis used by NASA, MIT, CalTech, UoC et al reaching converging conclusions to be true. Each and all of these institutions have a long history of success.

    I have no evidence that anything or anybody supported by the Heartland Institute has produced anything to add to the debate except misinformation, which they have done throughout their history on many subjects that have been shown to cause harm. That is what they are paid for.

    I find it fascinating that you choose the few grifters rather than those with the expertise, though not surprised.
     
  7. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Tony Heller receives no money from the Heartland other than maybe the occasional talk he gives. His main support is from people who subscribe to his videos. He is not the only person/org that I am interested in BTW. You should know that AGW grifters exist and have been lying to us all for decades and it surprises me that you fall for their pseudo science. They adjust data to fit the AGW hypothesis and it does not surprise me in the least that they are converging. They need to cover each others back. As for their success! When did that happen? Which cataclysm did they finally get right?
    I present evidence with sources and all you can come up with is a false personal (against Tony) accusation and a label!!
     
  8. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Facts are facts, without fossil fuel at or near current usage we will struggle to feed ourselves, to heat our homes, have light in the homes, have freedom of movement. If you think that is incorrect then give us all your take on how lowering CO2 to pre industrial levels will work.
     
    Kandahar likes this.
  9. Kandahar

    Kandahar Lead commenter

    One of XRs founders has plans to force us back to a Medieval way of life through increased anarchy (which our police seem incapable of countering).
     
  10. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    upload_2020-2-18_14-22-30.png

    Two-faced Exxon: the misinformation campaign against its own scientists
    100% global warming consensus in Exxon scientists’ research contrasted its $31m campaign to cast doubt on that consensus

    Exxon scientists’ 100% global warming consensus
    I reviewed all 53 of the papers referenced by Exxon’s spokesman, and they indeed consist of high-quality scientific research. Most of them implicitly or explicitly endorsed the expert consensus on human-caused global warming; none minimized or rejected it. This means that there is a 100% consensus on human-caused global warming among Exxon’s peer-reviewed climate science research – even higher than the 97% consensus in the rest of the peer-reviewed literature.

    Of the 53 papers, 45 were co-authored by Haroon Kheshgi. I spoke to several climate scientists who worked with him and all agree, Kheshgi is a top-notch climate scientist, for example having constructively contributed to the first IPCC reports that identified a human influence on global warming.

    Katharine Hayhoe, one of TIME magazine’s 100 most influential people, did a summer internship with Kheshgi at one of Exxon’s facilities as part of her masters’ thesis research, and subsequently co-authored a number of papers with him. Hayhoe described her experience with Kheshgi and Exxon,

    Haroon himself is an outstanding scientist - careful, detailed, methodical, and committed to doing good science, just as we all are. In my experience with Exxon and with Haroon, I never met a scientist who expressed any opinions counter to those prevalent in the academic community.

    Much of Exxon’s early research in the 1980s dealt with climate modeling, for example projecting that the planet’s surface temperatures would warm 3–6°C above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100. Their research has often discussed the dangers associated with this degree of global warming, and many studies published by Exxon scientists investigated the possibility of mitigating climate change by sequestering carbon in the deep ocean.

    The peer-reviewed research published by Exxon’s climate scientists was entirely in line with the expert consensus that humans are causing potentially dangerous global warming, and that we need to explore ways to mitigate the associated risks.


    That must be terribly awkward reading for you...
     

    Attached Files:

    Nanook_rubs_it likes this.
  11. Kandahar

    Kandahar Lead commenter

    Sounds like an OFSTED report to me.

    Best binned with all of the other "outstandings".

    Amazing that you fall for this cr.ap.
     
  12. Nanook_rubs_it

    Nanook_rubs_it Star commenter

    Evidence with more credible sources have been provided to you that completely debunks Heller, Heartland any other number of shrills that have a youtube channel (and Patreon account no doubt), yet you keep making false allegations of fraud against organisations that you wouldn't hesitate to cite on any other subject.

    You are wasting your money supporting these grifters; move on to discussing what needs to be done, as what you think is happening on youtube, isn't supported by what is happening outside your door.
     
    Scintillant likes this.
  13. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    Well, the Exxon science is there for all to see. I've posted quite a bit of it already. Their graphing, their modelling, their predictions, all in line with mainstream climate science.

    Never mind.

    I'm sorry you had a bad experience with Ofsted.
     
  14. Kandahar

    Kandahar Lead commenter

    Corporate branded science. Well I never. That'll turn heads.
    Unlike you, I don't give credence to Ofsted judgements.
     
  15. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    You clearly are not familiar with my oft-expressed views on the validity of Ofsted judgements, and the statistical reliability of their methods, etc.

    They are numerous on this site.
     
  16. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    There are far more important things to discuss than the lie of AGW., unfortunately people cannot or will not see it.
    CO2 is life giving to the planet, it is not a pollutant.
    Plastics in the ocean, particulates that we breath, land pollution, land over usage, deforestation, nuclear waste, over use of insecticides, all are far more important issues IMO.
     
  17. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    It is of no significance to me, unless EXXON have fiddled the data like NASA,NOAA,IPCC to justify the lie of AGW. I suspect you are going tangential again. Projections, estimates, forecasts, modelling, is that the kind of science you believe? Is that the kind of science the world should move forward on?
    A crystal ball would give better results IMO.
    How many of the AGW apocalyptic projections have come true so far? Ice age, Global flooding, earth on fire, mass starvation, ????
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2020
  18. Nanook_rubs_it

    Nanook_rubs_it Star commenter

    Yet you spend a disproportanate amount of time seeking out shrills who support your faith; it seems important to you.

    That's why Venus is teeming with complex life...? o_O

    It's not 'either/or'
     
  19. Kandahar

    Kandahar Lead commenter

    Perhaps - and quite possibly in the past.
     

Share This Page