|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 9, 2023 13:50:19 GMT
You are in communication with members of the public, so consider that evidence to counter your claims. I am not disagreeing that there is a chunk of the population who are driven by their feelies, but I prefer to start with absolute respect for the indivudual unless given a reason not to. The public is made up of individuals. Less driven by their feelings, more too busy to study the science that backs up the claims. Ask most folks if they think the warming of Greenland is causing the Jet stream to buckle and they'll just shrug. Nothing wrong with that, we can't be experts on everything, no one has the time. Its why we have specialists making the right decisions for us. That comment ties in with the democracy thread. Experts should not be making decisions for us they should be informing us of the situation in which they are expert and advising us. I am also well aware unfortunately, over the last couple of decades certainly, that reports can be commissioned by government and the result can be targeted to give the result required by the government irrespective of the actual evidence. The MSN play a part in disseminating what the government want to the populace whereby the lie is half way round teh world before the truth has got its boots on. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 9, 2023 14:02:20 GMT
Is it possible that, when making its assessment of the state of climate change, the UN is taking into account current and anticipated conditions in the places where most of the global population live and not remote and inconsequential backwaters like the British Isles? Its all part of the same picture, where most food is grown, where humans are already at the edge of survivable weather, the effects on wildlife. But overarching all of this that there is no end point, no maximum climate change. Each degree we take 3 decades to raise will take 6 decades to reverse. We can't keep kicking the can down the road. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 9, 2023 17:08:00 GMT
There's a notable lack of scientific language in Guterres's statement - just an appeal to people's emotions. Thats always the case though - and even when there is scientific fact it has to be the right 'facts' to support the narrative. For example you dont hear much about one of the biggest impacts of increased carbon dioxide being global greening – the recent increase in green vegetation on the planet is equivalent to twice the area of the United States. Not the right facts ...  |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 9, 2023 23:35:48 GMT
A good example of why the whole "Green" thing is such bunk.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Sept 10, 2023 0:02:29 GMT
Carbon.
The carbon currently tied up in fossil fuels once existed as free carbon. When fossil fuels are used no additional carbon is created - the carbon that was already there is simply being released, often into something more akin to its original state.
The Earth is effectively a sealed system and the sum total of "Stuff" contained within it cannot change. So adding stuff in one area necessarily means removing it from elsewhere.
"Science" which measures the effect of one, without considering the effect of the other, tells us nothing. And that's the current status of so called climate science.
But even if that were not so, there is no escaping the fact that there is only so much stuff and we can neither create nor destroy it: We can only move it around and the overall balance does not, indeed cannot, change.
And when you add in that natural phenomena, an increase in vulcanicity, of solar activity or a change in Earth's tilt (all outside of our control) would have a vastly greater effect than the sum total of man's activity then it's easy to see that climate change "Science" is bunk.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Sept 10, 2023 6:50:25 GMT
There's a notable lack of scientific language in Guterres's statement - just an appeal to people's emotions. The public aren't interested in data, they want broad statements and clear leadership. Look how easily they are fooled by a bunch of bloggers claiming it was hotter 400,000 years ago. Sigh. The Earth can take care of itself. The problem is that there are a lot of people on this planet who are very easily fooled by disinformation - and the internet has provided a powerful tool for the disseminators of this disinformation. CO2 is the ultimate con and there are a lot of clever con artists who are laughing their arses off right now. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 10, 2023 8:21:16 GMT
There's a notable lack of scientific language in Guterres's statement - just an appeal to people's emotions. Thats always the case though - and even when there is scientific fact it has to be the right 'facts' to support the narrative. For example you dont hear much about one of the biggest impacts of increased carbon dioxide being global greening – the recent increase in green vegetation on the planet is equivalent to twice the area of the United States. Not the right facts ... Or more rounded. As CO2 builds up in the atmosphere, it warms the planet, acidifies the ocean and melts glaciers. It also promotes plant growth -- after all, that's why it's called the "greenhouse gas effect". A huge collaborative effort spanning 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries found that in the last 33 years the area occupied by vegetation has significantly increased. And that all extra vegetation is still not touching the amount of Co2 we are adding each year. So you tell me, what is the critical and succinct message the public needs to get. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 10, 2023 14:19:46 GMT
Thats always the case though - and even when there is scientific fact it has to be the right 'facts' to support the narrative. For example you dont hear much about one of the biggest impacts of increased carbon dioxide being global greening – the recent increase in green vegetation on the planet is equivalent to twice the area of the United States. Not the right facts ... Or more rounded. As CO2 builds up in the atmosphere, it warms the planet, acidifies the ocean and melts glaciers. It also promotes plant growth -- after all, that's why it's called the "greenhouse gas effect". A huge collaborative effort spanning 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries found that in the last 33 years the area occupied by vegetation has significantly increased. And that all extra vegetation is still not touching the amount of Co2 we are adding each year. So you tell me, what is the critical and succinct message the public needs to get. CO2 building up in the atmosphere warms the planet may be true, what is unknown is to what level and whether it is actually significant. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Sept 10, 2023 14:28:50 GMT
Thats always the case though - and even when there is scientific fact it has to be the right 'facts' to support the narrative. For example you dont hear much about one of the biggest impacts of increased carbon dioxide being global greening – the recent increase in green vegetation on the planet is equivalent to twice the area of the United States. Not the right facts ... Or more rounded. As CO2 builds up in the atmosphere, it warms the planet, acidifies the ocean and melts glaciers. It also promotes plant growth -- after all, that's why it's called the "greenhouse gas effect". A huge collaborative effort spanning 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries found that in the last 33 years the area occupied by vegetation has significantly increased. And that all extra vegetation is still not touching the amount of Co2 we are adding each year. So you tell me, what is the critical and succinct message the public needs to get. 1.That's NOT why it's called the greenhouse effect. 2. It wasn't long ago that you were saying that CO2 didn't promote plant growth. 3. We don't know that " all extra vegetation is still not touching the amount of Co2 we are adding each year". The fact that CO2 is increasing could be (and probably is) because we continue to grow our population, cut down our forests and build everywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 10, 2023 17:29:51 GMT
Or more rounded. As CO2 builds up in the atmosphere, it warms the planet, acidifies the ocean and melts glaciers. It also promotes plant growth -- after all, that's why it's called the "greenhouse gas effect". A huge collaborative effort spanning 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries found that in the last 33 years the area occupied by vegetation has significantly increased. And that all extra vegetation is still not touching the amount of Co2 we are adding each year. So you tell me, what is the critical and succinct message the public needs to get. CO2 building up in the atmosphere warms the planet may be true, what is unknown is to what level and whether it is actually significant. We know that it warms the planet, do you have any reason to believe ever increasing amounts do not lead to ever increasing temperatures? |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Sept 10, 2023 17:34:39 GMT
CO2 building up in the atmosphere warms the planet may be true, what is unknown is to what level and whether it is actually significant. We know that it warms the planet, do you have any reason to believe ever increasing amounts do not lead to ever increasing temperatures? Do we? the UK is not responsible for the ever increasing amounts anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 10, 2023 17:40:53 GMT
Carbon. The carbon currently tied up in fossil fuels once existed as free carbon. When fossil fuels are used no additional carbon is created - the carbon that was already there is simply being released, often into something more akin to its original state. The Earth is effectively a sealed system and the sum total of "Stuff" contained within it cannot change. So adding stuff in one area necessarily means removing it from elsewhere. "Science" which measures the effect of one, without considering the effect of the other, tells us nothing. And that's the current status of so called climate science. But even if that were not so, there is no escaping the fact that there is only so much stuff and we can neither create nor destroy it: We can only move it around and the overall balance does not, indeed cannot, change. And when you add in that natural phenomena, an increase in vulcanicity, of solar activity or a change in Earth's tilt (all outside of our control) would have a vastly greater effect than the sum total of man's activity then it's easy to see that climate change "Science" is bunk. Oh for gods sake. The carbon sequestrated in fossil fuels was gathered over millions of years. We are releasing it over centuries. It takes 5 years to fill a dam. Try releasing it all in 5 hours and tell me there's no difference. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 10, 2023 17:43:51 GMT
The public aren't interested in data, they want broad statements and clear leadership. Look how easily they are fooled by a bunch of bloggers claiming it was hotter 400,000 years ago. Sigh. The Earth can take care of itself. The problem is that there are a lot of people on this planet who are very easily fooled by disinformation - and the internet has provided a powerful tool for the disseminators of this disinformation. CO2 is the ultimate con and there are a lot of clever con artists who are laughing their arses off right now. The earth is not sentient. It will quite happily become Venus, kill us all along with all the animals insects and plant life and sit devoid of life for a couple of million years. If that's what you mean by take care of itself, then yep. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 10, 2023 17:52:16 GMT
Carbon. The carbon currently tied up in fossil fuels once existed as free carbon. When fossil fuels are used no additional carbon is created - the carbon that was already there is simply being released, often into something more akin to its original state. The Earth is effectively a sealed system and the sum total of "Stuff" contained within it cannot change. So adding stuff in one area necessarily means removing it from elsewhere. "Science" which measures the effect of one, without considering the effect of the other, tells us nothing. And that's the current status of so called climate science. But even if that were not so, there is no escaping the fact that there is only so much stuff and we can neither create nor destroy it: We can only move it around and the overall balance does not, indeed cannot, change. And when you add in that natural phenomena, an increase in vulcanicity, of solar activity or a change in Earth's tilt (all outside of our control) would have a vastly greater effect than the sum total of man's activity then it's easy to see that climate change "Science" is bunk. Oh for gods sake. The carbon sequestrated in fossil fuels was gathered over millions of years. We are releasing it over centuries. It takes 5 years to fill a dam. Try releasing it all in 5 hours and tell me there's no difference. That presupposes that the deluge will have any specific effect. That is unknown outside the laboratory and certainly not proven with any model. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 10, 2023 17:53:28 GMT
Or more rounded. As CO2 builds up in the atmosphere, it warms the planet, acidifies the ocean and melts glaciers. It also promotes plant growth -- after all, that's why it's called the "greenhouse gas effect". A huge collaborative effort spanning 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries found that in the last 33 years the area occupied by vegetation has significantly increased. And that all extra vegetation is still not touching the amount of Co2 we are adding each year. So you tell me, what is the critical and succinct message the public needs to get. 1.That's NOT why it's called the greenhouse effect. 2. It wasn't long ago that you were saying that CO2 didn't promote plant growth. 3. We don't know that " all extra vegetation is still not touching the amount of Co2 we are adding each year". The fact that CO2 is increasing could be (and probably is) because we continue to grow our population, cut down our forests and build everywhere. I have never claimed increased Co2 did not promote plant growth, everyone knows its one of the ingredients to plant growth. I have said its not enough to counter the amount of Co2 we are adding. We do know its not keeping up because the amount of atmospheric Co2 is still increasing despite our best efforts |
|
