Bad News for the Climate zealots

[OwlHoot]

The latest models all predict this. The science is settled, now go pay your green taxes you silly little person. ..

Out of interest Dodgy, Dim, & other global warming skeptics, what evidence would it take to give you pause for thought?

In other words, what natural phenomenon or measurements would suggest to you there might be something in it?

[DodgyAgent]

Out of interest Dodgy, Dim, & other global warming skeptics, what evidence would it take to give you pause for thought?

In other words, what natural phenomenon or measurements would suggest to you there might be something in it?

I am convinced that the concept of global warming is a hoax for the following reasons:

The scaremongering manner in which the so called facts about so called man made global warming are delivered (accompanied by photos of Polar Bears "apparently" stranded on ice floes, photos of forest fires, droughts, melting ice, ice flows, ISIS beheading people - you name it. Which suggests that the facts are not thought to be sufficiently convincing.

Most of those that are researching and delivering so called facts (I mean so called because they are carefully chosen facts contrived to reach a particular conclusion) are paid directly or indirectly to conclude that the climate is changing for the worse (you never hear them admit to any positive outcomes of warming) due to the burning of fossil fuels.

Use of the word "denier" which is a medieval term used by religious zealots to control people who dared to challenge them

Lack of balance in discussing climate change - the effects of the sun , el nino etc are ignored or marginalised.

Point blank refusal to consider technology as a solution to the problem.

Constant attack on people's freedoms and to engage in capitalism (like flying abroad on holiday) smacks of left wing liberals trying to exert control or fulfil their own agendas.

People are now tired of it to the point that only the "wolf crying" zealots really give a sh*t



I may be wrong but even if I am what I do know is that cow towing to the demands of the climate change zealots will not make any difference whatsoever other than enrich them. I also do not understand enough about the science to be convinced "either way" so I will take my chances with what I do understand (Human nature) rather than fall "sheep like" into believing what I consider is propoganda.

[pjclarke]

I am convinced that the concept of global warming is a hoax for the following reasons:

The scaremongering manner in which the so called facts about so called man made global warming are delivered (accompanied by photos of Polar Bears "apparently" stranded on ice floes, photos of forest fires, droughts, melting ice, ice flows, ISIS beheading people - you name it. Which suggests that the facts are not thought to be sufficiently convincing.

Says the man who just uncritically posted a slab of Copy-Pasted garbage from the Daily Mail. I would certainly agree that the quality of science journalism is woeful, however the facts are available for anyone prepared to look beyond the tabloids. The IPCC has been going since 1990 and putting out assessment reports every few years, complete with FAQs and Summaries. All free and online. There's an excellent free ebook, The Discovery of Global Warming which I could link to and you would ignore.

Most of those that are researching and delivering so called facts (I mean so called because they are carefully chosen facts contrived to reach a particular conclusion) are paid directly or indirectly to conclude that the climate is changing for the worse (you never hear them admit to any positive outcomes of warming) due to the burning of fossil fuels.

Not so, the basic physics was first elucidated over a century ago and has been refined since. IPCC authors are unpaid for their contributions. Positive and negative impacts are discussed in the IPCC reports.

Use of the word "denier" which is a medieval term used by religious zealots to control people who dared to challenge them

Medieval, I thought it was meant to be linked to 'holocaust denial', by the delicate flowers on the Right? Perfectly good word, check out the definition.

Lack of balance in discussing climate change - the effects of the sun , el nino etc are ignored or marginalised.

Bollocks. See under natural



El Nino moves warm water to the surface, temporarily raising the temperature; the effects are reversed by the next LA Nina. Together they form the ENSO. The key letter being the 'O'.

Point blank refusal to consider technology as a solution to the problem.

Again bollux. Numerous IPCC Special reports on Carbon Capture etc. Geo engineering solutions may end up making the problem worse, and all CO2 removal techniques face the problem that CO2 is a trace gas so you need to move a lot of air to remove a small amount of carbon, compared to just reducing emissions, which we know will help.

Constant attack on people's freedoms and to engage in capitalism (like flying abroad on holiday) smacks of left wing liberals trying to exert control or fulfil their own agendas.

You poor snowflake.

People are now tired of it to the point that only the "wolf crying" zealots really give a sh*t

Don't worry: Don the Con will solve the problem by digging lots more coal. Or has he U-turned yet?

None of your reasons is grounded in reality.

[DodgyAgent]

"point blank refusal to consider technology as a solution to the problem".

Again bollux. Numerous IPCC Special reports on Carbon Capture etc. Geo engineering solutions may end up making the problem worse, and all CO2 removal techniques face the problem that CO2 is a trace gas so you need to move a lot of air to remove a small amount of carbon, compared to just reducing emissions, which we know will help.

There you go on cue rubbishing any technical solution.

By the way is the Earth too warm does anyone know?

[d000hg]

By the way is the Earth too warm does anyone know?

Too warm for what? We know deserts are growing and they're not much use, and are wounds which are quite hard to heal. Besides that it's a fair question why rising temperatures are unequivocally bad, you'd think some places would benefit and others lose out.

However rapid change of any kind is generally bad for ecosystems, species adapt in timescales of millennia or longer so if change out-paces a species' ability to adapt they can be wiped out which in turn can demolish an entire ecosystem. Heating or cooling, drier or wetter, etc...

[DodgyAgent]

Too warm for what? We know deserts are growing and they're not much use, and are wounds which are quite hard to heal. Besides that it's a fair question why rising temperatures are unequivocally bad, you'd think some places would benefit and others lose out.

However rapid change of any kind is generally bad for ecosystems, species adapt in timescales of millennia or longer so if change out-paces a species' ability to adapt they can be wiped out which in turn can demolish an entire ecosystem. Heating or cooling, drier or wetter, etc...

It is a subject that seems to be ignored. Again the climate zealots would never try to put this into the context of climate change. You never know if we get a few more degrees more of us would holiday in the UK or invest in cheap real estate in greenland. Again like sheep we are expected to fall in line with the narrative of the zealots.

[vwdan]

Dodgy, you sound like a letter from Viz.

That's not a complement, unless you are trolling us all deliberately, in which case well done you.

[DodgyAgent]

Dodgy, you sound like a letter from Viz.

That's not a complement, unless you are trolling us all deliberately, in which case well done you.

such are the complexities of CUK general

[d000hg]

It is a subject that seems to be ignored. Again the climate zealots would never try to put this into the context of climate change. You never know if we get a few more degrees more of us would holiday in the UK or invest in cheap real estate in greenland. Again like sheep we are expected to fall in line with the narrative of the zealots.

You inadvertently make a good point there - it is not the wealthy middle classes who are going to be hurt (much) by a rapidly changing climate, we can afford to install A/C or triple glazing and squeeze our belts, or even move somewhere nicer. It is the huge bulk of people living hand-to-mouth who would obviously suffer as they don't have the resources to do anything about it. If you're farming rice fields and the water dries up, you can't afford to move and starve. If you're living in the flood-prone areas because you can't afford somewhere better, you're the one who will get washed away. Etc.

So bottom line DA, you don't need to worry because you won't be hurt personally. All the people who will are dirty foreigners in far-flung nations who probably deserve to die for not trying harder.

[DodgyAgent]

You inadvertently make a good point there - it is not the wealthy middle classes who are going to be hurt (much) by a rapidly changing climate, we can afford to install A/C or triple glazing and squeeze our belts, or even move somewhere nicer. It is the huge bulk of people living hand-to-mouth who would obviously suffer as they don't have the resources to do anything about it. If you're farming rice fields and the water dries up, you can't afford to move and starve. If you're living in the flood-prone areas because you can't afford somewhere better, you're the one who will get washed away. Etc.

So bottom line DA, you don't need to worry because you won't be hurt personally. All the people who will are dirty foreigners in far-flung nations who probably deserve to die for not trying harder.

Inadvertently !