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.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by lanokia, Jan 10, 2020.
Not even wrong again.
You have decided that humans can NEVER affect the climate.
You used to (like many deniers) deny that there was any change in the climate happening, until it became impossible to continue and now you have decided to accept there is change - except that you KNOW that it's not humans.
You have decided on the answer but lack the conviction to say it here, instead you scrabble around to look for some kind of back-up. As it is humans who are causing the change (and not god) the only kind of back-up you can find is from dodgy, mistaken, disingenuous or plain dishonest sources.
I'm sure you are comfortable in what you believe, except it certainly isn't knowledge.
Show me untouched data that supports your stance.
I sometimes wonder what the next world bogeyman will be.
What an unsurprising post. So, to sum up your views:
"The people who do not agree with the prevailing orthodoxy about the climate are extremists"
"Explaining your views on the radio, if those views are not the same as those who have bought into the idea that the current variations in climate are a result of human activity, should be a criminal offence leading to incarceration".
You post this incredibly dangerous, totalitarian message and then you have the gall to call me, who along with thousands of experts and millions of other people, does not accept much of the current climate change hysteria, an extremist!
This is getting stupid surely
That somehow counters the stone cold fact that the sizeable majority of scientific papers from the period in question proposed warming and not an ice age?
You're just making stuff up.
It got stupid a long time ago. I haven't got a word for this level of inane guff
If the vast majority of scientists agree on something and a small amount cf much less qualified lay people claim to know better, and are arguing we should not address climate change, that IS an extremist view.
I would't actually lock anyone up - as I also said yesterday. "Ought to be locked up" is a figure of speech. Stupidity isn't a crime.
I am happy to discuss it with you. Can you explain what is causing the observed warming beyond that from natural factors (which can be measured)?
I'd take the opposite view, of course.
I would suggest that anyone who was gullible enough to a) buy into the idea that membership of the corrupt EU has been good for the UK, b) still believe in project fear (especially now, after so many "predictions" have been proven false), c) think that the current policies of the Labour party, had they won the recent election, would have benefited the country in general and d) consider that Mr Corbyn and Ms Abbott would have been an effective and safe PM and Home Secretary respectively, needs all the help he/she can get, even if he/she is not an "imbecile", as you (perhaps unfortunately) put it.
And the idea of "common sense" coming together with some posts on here is a bit of a stretch, too...
"I have to say that the training didn't impart wisdom I lacked...." Indeed.
That would be nice, if we can do it in a civilised manner. But I have my doubts - time will tell. I'm a natural skeptic. I don't accept things because people tell me, unless I know and completely trust them, or unless it's simply about normal everyday things. I always look for an agenda, especially where power, money or politics - which I suppose is a mixture of both - are involved. When i note that a certain section of the political spectrum focuses specifically on one side of an argument, and then further note that this focus benefits their own political agenda, alarm bells ring loud. This happened years ago to me. So I began to dig. And what I found was not conclusive. But I found enough evidence of error, exaggeration and lies on the climate alarmist side to make me doubt. Nothing I have found out since has changed this view.
As I was saying to some of the kids a few weeks ago, nobody denies that the climate changes. It's about what is causing the change that the disagreements arise. There are massive long-term shifts in weather patterns, heat/cold, glaciation, wind etc, that are caused by a very large number of factors. To say that the world is in danger because of human activity is to me a rash and extreme position to take, but it suits anti-capitalists and those who take anti-western, anti-american positions, especially now as it buys into two powerful leftist agendas - anti-Trumpism and virtue-signalling.
Maybe more on Thursday - tomorrow is a tough day for me. I drew up a list a while ago of some of the ways in which climate alarmists have been completely wrong, going back to the 70s. I'll see if I can dig it out. Perhaps you might comment on the above before then, but if not no worries.
I accept that you were using the "locked up" comment in a non-serious manner. As for "Stupidity isn't a crime." I agree. Please remind me to mention this to @Burndenpark.
Yep. On the nail, IMO. Unfortunately.
What do you think is causing the excess warming beyond natural factors that are already accounted for?
Natural factors are actually in a cooling trend at present so the warming we are seeing is actually even more serious.
Let me know your causal factor and I can discuss it with you.
I know... I lost interest when you and physicsfanboy unironically started calling for people who disagree with you to be locked up... or people who believe/know different to you ...
Seems to embody the XR extremism right there.
Will an acronym suffice? How about AGW
It could be argued that it is not a proven fact that human activity is causing global warming and hence climate change.
What we have is evidence there has been a recent increase in temperature at the same time there has been an increase in Human industrial activity. We have a suggested mechanism in that increased levels of emitted carbon dioxide (and other gases) are causing a Greenhouse Effect. So we have a theory which needs testing to prove it. But since the only way to test it is to either stop industrial activity for several years to see if warming declines (or I suppose burn extra fossil fuels to see if it increases ) its unlikely the theory will be proven soon.
But the evidence supporting warming is compelling and the consequence of ignoring it would be disastrous so its not worth taking the risk.
If we take steps now to reduce greenhouse emissions eventually we might see a difference which will either prove the skeptics right or wrong. But by then it would be too late.
People could argue it, but they would be very wrong.
The science is clear: climate change is happening. We are the cause. We need to act now.
This video from NASA shows the warming from natural factors and compares it with the observed temperature.
The excess CO2 has an isotopic footprint showing it to be of human-generated origin
There is no proven link between (isotopic footprint) and any attributable extra increase in temperature.
It is an hypothesis at best and fraud at worst.
The difference is that the above is not an empty threat such as employed by religion, but the logical conclusion based on the available evidence. The cure is not giving money to a church, or praying. It is reducing and reversing the level of CO2 in our atmosphere. This is not a penance, but a practical way to reverse the harm we have done in order to extend the lifespan of our species.