Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2023 12:07:04 GMT
What about it? CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were much greater then due to widespread volcanic activity. There is no such widespread volcanic activity today. And the climate was much warmer then, thereby demonstrating the link between CO2 and warming. This is of course in spite of the fact that the sun was known to be cooler back then. There was no man made global warming back then obviously but there was a natural mechanism occurring over millions of years, namely heavy volcanic activity. There is no evidence for the latter today. Volcanoes erupting all over the place are unlikely to go unnoticed. But there is plenty of evidence for man made emissions. Back then CO2 levels were perhaps as many as 14 or more times higher than at present, and the climate was consequently a lot warmer with no polar ice at all. But it took millions of years of volcanic outgassing to pump that much CO2 out. We have doubled CO2 concentrations in only a couple of centuries. If you have the intellectual courage to take on board actual facts, there are plenty here... www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide#Past%20and%20Future%20Carbon%20Dioxide |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 21, 2023 15:28:14 GMT
And if they said the cladding could catch fire if this or that happened you would ignore them because they used the word "could" Luckily the people who make the decisions on climate change are not that daft. Unless it was obvious, I would ask them for reasons why they thought that. And that's the problem when the science is too complicated for you to make an educated decision. The point at which you have to trust the experts. Nonetheless claiming that the word "could" means you can ignore it as lacking evidence is just bonkers. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 21, 2023 15:32:09 GMT
About what? You don't know the "what" that you're "doing something" about.
Tell me, do you take random drugs on the off-chance that you might have some undiagnosed illness?
Because that's essentially what you're suggesting that the rest of us should do: Take our medecine without even knowing if we're ill.
No I don't, but if an expert tells me to, then generally yes. How about you. If an expert tells you that you could have a heart attack if you don't take the pills, do you dismiss him as lacking evidence because he said couldOr perhaps you call him a quack because some guy on you tube says their lying to you. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jun 21, 2023 15:56:23 GMT
If an expert tells you that you could have a heart attack if you don't take the pills, do you dismiss him as lacking evidence because he said couldPoor analogy. If a heart specialist, after conducting relevant tests, tells me that I have an elevated risk of a specific condition then of course I believe him. Or perhaps you call him a quack because some guy on you tube says their lying to you. OTOH, if a supposed expert tells me that I could suffer in a hundred different ways unless I take his patent medicine, then I suspect he's a quack. That said quack is backed up by people, like you, who are usually wrong does not add to his credibility. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 21, 2023 16:07:02 GMT
If an expert tells you that you could have a heart attack if you don't take the pills, do you dismiss him as lacking evidence because he said couldPoor analogy. If a heart specialist, after conducting relevant tests, tells me that I have an elevated risk of a specific condition then of course I believe him. Or perhaps you call him a quack because some guy on you tube says their lying to you. OTOH, if a supposed expert tells me that I could suffer in a hundred different ways unless I take his patent medicine, then I suspect he's a quack. That said quack is backed up by people, like you, who are usually wrong does not add to his credibility. Perhaps get a second opinion? Perhaps from all the other experts saying the same thing. Or maybe you get your doctoring from you tube. Lol. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jun 21, 2023 16:13:41 GMT
If your doctor was one of those prats throwing paint at Twickenham then perhaps it would be sensible to think twice before taking their advice.
On any subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 21, 2023 16:17:40 GMT
If your doctor was one of those prats throwing paint at Twickenham then perhaps it would be sensible to think twice before taking their advice. On any subject. Nope. My doctor would be an expert working for NASA or advising the IPCC. Your doctor is a bloke on you tube telling you NASA is wrong because its what you want to hear. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jun 21, 2023 16:19:52 GMT
If your doctor was one of those prats throwing paint at Twickenham then perhaps it would be sensible to think twice before taking their advice. On any subject. It needed to be said mate...But be careful this is the mind zone and can be used to their advantage. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jun 21, 2023 16:33:18 GMT
If your doctor was one of those prats throwing paint at Twickenham then perhaps it would be sensible to think twice before taking their advice. On any subject. Nope. My doctor would be an expert working for NASA or advising the IPCC. Your doctor is a bloke on you tube telling you NASA is wrong because its what you want to hear. Nope. Your doctors are dickheads glueing themselves to the road. You only believe them because they're saying what you want to hear. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jun 21, 2023 17:09:41 GMT
Unless it was obvious, I would ask them for reasons why they thought that. And that's the problem when the science is too complicated for you to make an educated decision. The point at which you have to trust the experts. Nonetheless claiming that the word "could" means you can ignore it as lacking evidence is just bonkers. Remember I went to high school where physics and chemistry were my career subjects and my first job was in the laboratory of a world renowned company. Whilst there, I did, and almost completed, an ONC in chemistry and physics but gave up two months before completion, admitting that it was a dead end career. If you don't know what an ONC is, then it's an Ordinary National Certificate and equivalent to an Inter-BSC. Trust the experts?  By Friday I should have an expert phone me with a diagnosis and course of treatment. The original and incorrect diagnosis was made back in August by a GP and backed up by other GPs in the practice, all of them wrong and probably all of them attempting to defend a wrong diagnosis; it's what they do. Could means maybe....or maybe not. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 21, 2023 17:16:20 GMT
Nope. My doctor would be an expert working for NASA or advising the IPCC. Your doctor is a bloke on you tube telling you NASA is wrong because its what you want to hear. Nope. Your doctors are dickheads glueing themselves to the road. You only believe them because they're saying what you want to hear. Nope. I don't bother with repeating myself |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 21, 2023 17:22:46 GMT
And that's the problem when the science is too complicated for you to make an educated decision. The point at which you have to trust the experts. Nonetheless claiming that the word "could" means you can ignore it as lacking evidence is just bonkers. Remember I went to high school where physics and chemistry were my career subjects and my first job was in the laboratory of a world renowned company. Whilst there, I did, and almost completed, an ONC in chemistry and physics but gave up two months before completion, admitting that it was a dead end career. If you don't know what an ONC is, then it's an Ordinary National Certificate and equivalent to an Inter-BSC. Trust the experts? By Friday I should have an expert phone me with a diagnosis and course of treatment. The original and incorrect diagnosis was made back in August by a GP and backed up by other GPs in the practice, all of them wrong and probably all of them attempting to defend a wrong diagnosis; it's what they do. Could means maybe....or maybe not. Yes you got high school chemistry so you keep saying ad nauseum. That does not mean you understand climate change as well as NASA. Your career was selling roofing insulation from a warehouse. I know what an ONC is and note you failed to get it. Thousands of scientists agree on climate change from many countries across the globe. Added to this we see the evidence of our own eyes as glaciers melt and we see record temperatures. So forgive me if I believe NASA over a failed chemist student on an unknown forum. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 21, 2023 17:28:18 GMT
After today Net Zero is a pointless exercise as we are all going to get wiped out whatever we do.. might just as well enjoy ourselves..  |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jun 21, 2023 17:31:32 GMT
Nope. Your doctors are dickheads glueing themselves to the road. You only believe them because they're saying what you want to hear. Nope. I don't bother with repeating myself   |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jun 21, 2023 17:31:56 GMT
After today Net Zero is a pointless exercise as we are all going to get wiped out whatever we do.. might just as well enjoy ourselves.. Matybe we should have a beer and a Curry. |
|
By Friday I should have an expert phone me with a diagnosis and course of treatment. The original and incorrect diagnosis was made back in August by a GP and backed up by other GPs in the practice, all of them wrong and probably all of them attempting to defend a wrong diagnosis; it's what they do.
