|
|
Post by jonksy on Jul 2, 2023 14:39:56 GMT
And yet your post was directed at me, but nothing similar to any of those who constantly question the dedicated scientists working on climate change. Why should scientists whether dedicated or not be free from criticism, most especially if they are supporting a belief that most people should use less power and in the event have less freedom? Don't worry mate its Biden to the rescue...
More gloomy news from Biden! White House says it's open to plan that would BLOCK sunlight from hitting surface of the Earth in bid to limit global warming
The White House has opened the door to an audacious 'geoengineering' plan
The idea would block sunlight from the earth's surface to fight global warming
Scientists have warned the practice could have devastating effects
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 2, 2023 15:32:12 GMT
As for the truth, if its possible for all the scientific institutes on the planet to twist the truth to their ends, then its just as possible for WUWT to do the same. Difference between you and me is I went to the WUWT site, looked at the claims and researched them. I spent many hours (because I'm interested) looking at the details of the claims and found them to be misrepresentative of what was said and the facts. Of course it possible for any group to involve itself in nefarious actions to further their agenda. The difference is that the IPCC are making claims and seeking action from the planet's population. WUWT do not have that agenda, they may be seeking to discredit said IPCC agenda but then surely the IPCC case must be watertight against such actions, not be made immune from such actions by labelling it misinformation. WUWT's agenda is to stop those actions being carried out by discrediting the IPCC. As for the case being watertight we hammered out quite a while back that there is no such thing as proven in science. (Back in the days when climate change denial was based on prove its happening beyond any doubt) All we have is evidence and hypothesis based on that evidence. That is why WUWT are able to point to a 0.03+- variable in temperature readings as enough evidence for you to call into doubt the whole evidence that AGW is happening or needs actions taken. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jul 2, 2023 17:20:13 GMT
Of course it possible for any group to involve itself in nefarious actions to further their agenda. The difference is that the IPCC are making claims and seeking action from the planet's population. WUWT do not have that agenda, they may be seeking to discredit said IPCC agenda but then surely the IPCC case must be watertight against such actions, not be made immune from such actions by labelling it misinformation. WUWT's agenda is to stop those actions being carried out by discrediting the IPCC. As for the case being watertight we hammered out quite a while back that there is no such thing as proven in science. (Back in the days when climate change denial was based on prove its happening beyond any doubt) All we have is evidence and hypothesis based on that evidence. That is why WUWT are able to point to a 0.03+- variable in temperature readings as enough evidence for you to call into doubt the whole evidence that AGW is happening or needs actions taken. Now post proof that it's happening. Not one single prediction made by the eco zealots has ever come true It's all false assumptions by a few who refuse to acknowledge facts and who are making money from this ECO bullsit. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 2, 2023 18:15:45 GMT
WUWT's agenda is to stop those actions being carried out by discrediting the IPCC. As for the case being watertight we hammered out quite a while back that there is no such thing as proven in science. (Back in the days when climate change denial was based on prove its happening beyond any doubt) All we have is evidence and hypothesis based on that evidence. That is why WUWT are able to point to a 0.03+- variable in temperature readings as enough evidence for you to call into doubt the whole evidence that AGW is happening or needs actions taken. Now post proof that it's happening. Not one single prediction made by the eco zealots has ever come true It's all false assumptions by a few who refuse to acknowledge facts and who are making money from this ECO bullsit. You are so far behind on this. Long ago it was shown that there can be no "proof" there can only be evidence. Evidence showing estimates and trends. That those estimates are often wrong does not change the trend nor its cause. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jul 2, 2023 19:33:06 GMT
Now post proof that it's happening. Not one single prediction made by the eco zealots has ever come true It's all false assumptions by a few who refuse to acknowledge facts and who are making money from this ECO bullsit. Long ago it was shown that there can be no "proof" there can only be evidence. Evidence showing estimates and trends. That those estimates are often wrong does not change the trend nor its cause. Oh dear....Now proove the evidence then? How many more times do you need to be shown and told that global warning is a myth? Why are we all still here posting on this thread? According to bumburgh we would be all dead by now? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 2, 2023 20:04:16 GMT
You are so far behind on this. Long ago it was shown that there can be no "proof" there can only be evidence. Evidence showing estimates and trends. That those estimates are often wrong does not change the trend nor its cause. Oh dear....Now proove the evidence then? How many more times do you need to be shown and told that global warning is a myth? Why are we all still here posting on this thread? According to bumburgh we would be all dead by now? Proove the evidence. Lol Wonderful. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jul 2, 2023 20:52:51 GMT
Oh dear....Now proove the evidence then? How many more times do you need to be shown and told that global warning is a myth? Why are we all still here posting on this thread? According to bumburgh we would be all dead by now? Proove the evidence. Lol Wonderful. It would be if you could. Why are we still here as your leader categorically stated we wouldn't be here this year after the 21st june? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 2, 2023 21:36:28 GMT
Proove the evidence. Lol Wonderful. It would be if you could. Why are we still here as your leader categorically stated we wouldn't be here this year after the 21st june? I don't think you are this stupid. I think it must be an act. You can't prove evidence, evidence lends itself to proof. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jul 2, 2023 21:41:18 GMT
It would be if you could. Why are we still here as your leader categorically stated we wouldn't be here this year after the 21st june? I don't think you are this stupid. I think it must be an act. You can't prove evidence, evidence lends itself to proof. So bumburgher told a blatant lie then......... The Evidence is there.....She categorically stated the world would no longer be here after the 21st of June this year. Her statement is well documentend as you well know. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 2, 2023 21:47:45 GMT
I don't think you are this stupid. I think it must be an act. You can't prove evidence, evidence lends itself to proof. So bumburgher told a blatant lie then......... The Evidence is there.....She categorically stated the world would no longer be here after the 21st of June this year. Her statement is well documentend as you well know. I think everyone else has understood the meaning of the claim some pages back. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 2, 2023 21:52:04 GMT
Oh dear....Now proove the evidence then? How many more times do you need to be shown and told that global warning is a myth? Why are we all still here posting on this thread? According to bumburgh we would be all dead by now? Proove the evidence. Lol Wonderful. The comment has legs. Proving the evidence upon which one bases one's hypothesis seems like a reasonable requirement. The evidence currently has so many holes and false prophesies then we are entitled to be sceptical. In 1986 "Global Temperatures are predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020". About 0.5 is the current increase 1990 Warming is predicted to be 0.3C per decade. So far it is no more than 0.19 and could be 0.12 per decade. 1990 Business as usual forecast temperature increases about 1C above existent. So far it is no more than 0.49 and could be 0.32 Then we have storm, hurricane, wildfire, arctic sea ice, increased local rainfall, typhoons, West Antarctic giant melt, seal level rise to 15ft, three feet by 2000, food shortages, climate refugees, umpteen time running out predictions.. Time and again the consensus has proved itself incapable of making even a half decent prediction of what is going to happen. Crying wolf once gets our attention, calling it twice gets our attention, calling it 15 to 20 times with no wolf appearing means at best we would be idiotic to carry on believing. It is not that sceptics create false scenarios it is that those false scenarios have been boosted time and again to galvanise us into action and now we no longer accept the narrative. It is the warmists who have destroyed a possible consensus in the world population by overegging the pudding time and time again. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jul 2, 2023 23:51:14 GMT
So bumburgher told a blatant lie then......... The Evidence is there.....She categorically stated the world would no longer be here after the 21st of June this year. Her statement is well documentend as you well know. I think everyone else has understood the meaning of the claim some pages back. Everyone apart from you it seems. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jul 3, 2023 0:13:06 GMT
Proove the evidence. Lol Wonderful. The comment has legs. Proving the evidence upon which one bases one's hypothesis seems like a reasonable requirement. The evidence currently has so many holes and false prophesies then we are entitled to be sceptical. In 1986 "Global Temperatures are predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020". About 0.5 is the current increase 1990 Warming is predicted to be 0.3C per decade. So far it is no more than 0.19 and could be 0.12 per decade. 1990 Business as usual forecast temperature increases about 1C above existent. So far it is no more than 0.49 and could be 0.32 Then we have storm, hurricane, wildfire, arctic sea ice, increased local rainfall, typhoons, West Antarctic giant melt, seal level rise to 15ft, three feet by 2000, food shortages, climate refugees, umpteen time running out predictions.. Time and again the consensus has proved itself incapable of making even a half decent prediction of what is going to happen. Crying wolf once gets our attention, calling it twice gets our attention, calling it 15 to 20 times with no wolf appearing means at best we would be idiotic to carry on believing. It is not that sceptics create false scenarios it is that those false scenarios have been boosted time and again to galvanise us into action and now we no longer accept the narrative. It is the warmists who have destroyed a possible consensus in the world population by overegging the pudding time and time again. According to zany and others NASA belives their assertions and predictions...If they are why are they still spending billions of dollars on future missions?
How strange?
Upcoming Mission Events
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 3, 2023 6:29:52 GMT
Proove the evidence. Lol Wonderful. The comment has legs. Proving the evidence upon which one bases one's hypothesis seems like a reasonable requirement. The evidence currently has so many holes and false prophesies then we are entitled to be sceptical. In 1986 "Global Temperatures are predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020". About 0.5 is the current increase 1990 Warming is predicted to be 0.3C per decade. So far it is no more than 0.19 and could be 0.12 per decade. 1990 Business as usual forecast temperature increases about 1C above existent. So far it is no more than 0.49 and could be 0.32 Then we have storm, hurricane, wildfire, arctic sea ice, increased local rainfall, typhoons, West Antarctic giant melt, seal level rise to 15ft, three feet by 2000, food shortages, climate refugees, umpteen time running out predictions.. Time and again the consensus has proved itself incapable of making even a half decent prediction of what is going to happen. Crying wolf once gets our attention, calling it twice gets our attention, calling it 15 to 20 times with no wolf appearing means at best we would be idiotic to carry on believing. It is not that sceptics create false scenarios it is that those false scenarios have been boosted time and again to galvanise us into action and now we no longer accept the narrative. It is the warmists who have destroyed a possible consensus in the world population by overegging the pudding time and time again. Sandy, not you as well. Evidence is not proof, evidence is evidence. As for the rest of your post. For a moment lets assume your claims above are accurate. What is to be done, we know the earth is warming and we know its due to man. But we cannot accurately predict the rate. many things we didn't know about, such as the current solar maunder, are constantly changing the effects. So far most of these have been in the right direction but could easily have made the predictions too low. The deniers use these errors as evidence that global warming isn't happening, but you know better, you know its happening. So what do we do? Do we downgrade the predictions and hope they don't jump the other way and catch us out? Do we kick the can down the road, slow down the cuts in Co2 emissions and hope the increased temperatures predicted by various tipping points don't catch us out as well? Is your argument that its more important to please the crowd than to prepare for the worst? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jul 3, 2023 6:39:03 GMT
Incidentally. Busines as usual was the prediction if the world did nothing and Co2 emissions continued on their rising path, but the world has not done nothing and while we are nowhere near where we want to be the reductions made so far do have an effect. Here's the IPCC business as usual report. Though I suspect only you and I would actually read it. www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ipcc_90_92_assessments_far_overview.pdf |
|
