|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 28, 2022 11:55:00 GMT
Ooo a right wing blog site. That'll tell those bloody so called climate experts. LOL, predictable eco mentalist response. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 28, 2022 12:00:42 GMT
The definition of science revolves around the predictability of truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 28, 2022 12:03:23 GMT
The definition of science revolves around the predictability of truth. Did you watch the video clip? |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 28, 2022 12:14:17 GMT
I'm watching the football.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 28, 2022 12:27:13 GMT
I'm watching the football. LOL, you really are a typical eco mentalist aren't you Monte. You simply refuse to acknowledge facts that contradict your alarmist agenda. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 28, 2022 12:35:54 GMT
I'm watching the football. LOL, you really are a typical eco mentalist aren't you Monte. You simply refuse to acknowledge facts that contradict your alarmist agenda. Where did I refuse to watch your video? I'm watching the football now. I'll get around to your video later if you don't keep trolling me. I wonder though, how you would react if I demanded you watched a video on the benefits of immigration titled ''Diversity is our Strength''. If you are going to continuously kick my hobby horse I might be motivated to break the legs of yours. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 28, 2022 12:54:19 GMT
While there is no proof of any position it's overwhelmingly likely that the climate is warming. It's also very likely man has a significant part in this and likely that any further significant rise will bring severe adverse consequences in terms of net deaths and economic catastrophes through most of us living at low altitudes and close to water.
Given that we're running out of affordable carbon to burn why would any intelligent person say we should just take the risks willy nilly until they see definitive proof? They wouldn't walk across a dual carriageway just because there's no proof they get squished by an 18 wheeler would they.
All smacks of I'm all right jack and stuff generations to come.
But on the other hand some of the 'net zero' campaigns are just activism (and worse) for activism sake ignoring the societal risks of leaping to net zero and then we have the utter BS that some 'net zero' schemes are.
All needs a far more intelligent position than a referendum would produce. So I voted no.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 28, 2022 13:11:35 GMT
LOL, you really are a typical eco mentalist aren't you Monte. You simply refuse to acknowledge facts that contradict your alarmist agenda. Where did I refuse to watch your video? I'm watching the football now. I'll get around to your video later if you don't keep trolling me. I wonder though, how you would react if I demanded you watched a video on the benefits of immigration titled ''Diversity is our Strength''. If you are going to continuously kick my hobby horse I might be motivated to break the legs of yours. You accuse me of trolling! Trolling FFS. I didn't 'demand' that you watched any clip, we were having a discussion about climate change, a discussion you were losing so now you're getting stroppy and threatening to put your moderator's hat on. It didn't take long did it. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 28, 2022 13:34:32 GMT
Where did I refuse to watch your video? I'm watching the football now. I'll get around to your video later if you don't keep trolling me. I wonder though, how you would react if I demanded you watched a video on the benefits of immigration titled ''Diversity is our Strength''. If you are going to continuously kick my hobby horse I might be motivated to break the legs of yours. You accuse me of trolling! Trolling FFS. I didn't 'demand' that you watched any clip, we were having a discussion about climate change, a discussion you were losing so now you're getting stroppy and threatening to put your moderator's hat on. It didn't take long did it. Not at all Red. You called me an ecomentalist and then said I refused to accept facts. That is posting in order to get an emotional reaction or trolling. Not to mention a personal insult but rest assured I did not have my moderator hat on when I responded. As for losing, that's the funniest thing you've said in a while. You used to be more a lot more amusing. I've taken the time to respond to yet another of your anti net zero threads, in fact I was the first, but the idea of a referendum on whether to have a referendum is pretty absurd so I shall leave it to die like all the rest. I bid you adieu. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 28, 2022 13:53:15 GMT
You accuse me of trolling! Trolling FFS. I didn't 'demand' that you watched any clip, we were having a discussion about climate change, a discussion you were losing so now you're getting stroppy and threatening to put your moderator's hat on. It didn't take long did it. Not at all Red. You called me an ecomentalist and then said I refused to accept facts. That is posting in order to get an emotional reaction or trolling. Not to mention a personal insult but rest assured I did not have my moderator hat on when I responded. As for losing, that's the funniest thing you've said in a while. You used to be more a lot more amusing. I've taken the time to respond to yet another of your anti net zero threads, in fact I was the first, but the idea of a referendum on whether to have a referendum is pretty absurd so I shall leave it to die like all the rest. I bid you adieu. Lets not fall out. OK, I apologise. (But I wasn't trolling lol,  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Nov 28, 2022 13:57:17 GMT
Accepted.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 28, 2022 14:46:02 GMT
The definition of science revolves around the predictability of truth. Science is NOTHING to do with the "truth", whatever that may mean. Science is about observing facts, finding correlations and trying to find theories about causation, if any. That's all. The theories are then formulated as equations and tested to see if they fit the observed data. If they work then the next step is to see if you can make predictions from the theory. If you can make accurate predictions then the theory has passed the main test. However, it is NOT "right" because it works. It's not the "Truth". It's just the basis for a working model. All theories are basically wrong. But while they make accurate predictions they're accepted. The fundamental problem with the "climate models" is that they've never worked. They're based on the hypothesis that CO2 causes warming and that the degree of warming can be related to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere - but it doesn't work like that. No one has ever demonstrated that CO2 causes warming in the Earth's system. And people keep on saying that the majority (95% or 97% etc) of scientists agree that CO2 is the main cause of warming, but I've never heard a single scientist say that. The thing about scientists is that they ALWAYS accept that their theories are fallible - even when they work. And this theory doesn't even work. Maybe you'd like to quote a scientist who has made this spurious claim? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 28, 2022 16:03:01 GMT
If I was convinced that CO2 is responsible for the planet warming and that mankind could do anything about it, ye, I would support efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. However, there is no such evidence. How many people should we kill? Climate change has killed nobody. The weather sometimes does, as in Italy, yesterday. We are being gaslighted into poverty and death by freezing. I'm all for ecology, but this is a step too far. What qualifications do you have on climate change? They must be good for you to think you know better than the vast majority of climate scientists. WE are now back to 'vast majority' for which statement there is little or no evidence and what there is has been debunked in clear and concise ways. Those climate scientists who disagree, like Judith Curry, are denigrated, cancelled and ridiculed despite openly believing at one time in a climate emergency then coming to a different conclusion through research. Science is not a set view, or even a majority view it is a process. I do not know better than any climate scientist but what I need is a consistent and true explanation of what is occurring and that seems to be in very short supply most especially as regards the 'vast majority' of climate scientists who are sometimes the 'vast majority, because they ignore the rest as even existing. The deeper one digs, the more problems with the preferred narrative emerge. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 28, 2022 16:14:09 GMT
The definition of science revolves around the predictability of truth. Science is NOTHING to do with the "truth", whatever that may mean. Science is about observing facts, finding correlations and trying to find theories about causation, if any. That's all. The theories are then formulated as equations and tested to see if they fit the observed data. If they work then the next step is to see if you can make predictions from the theory. If you can make accurate predictions then the theory has passed the main test. However, it is NOT "right" because it works. It's not the "Truth". It's just the basis for a working model. All theories are basically wrong. But while they make accurate predictions they're accepted. The fundamental problem with the "climate models" is that they've never worked. They're based on the hypothesis that CO2 causes warming and that the degree of warming can be related to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere - but it doesn't work like that. No one has ever demonstrated that CO2 causes warming in the Earth's system. And people keep on saying that the majority (95% or 97% etc) of scientists agree that CO2 is the main cause of warming, but I've never heard a single scientist say that. The thing about scientists is that they ALWAYS accept that their theories are fallible - even when they work. And this theory doesn't even work. Maybe you'd like to quote a scientist who has made this spurious claim? We have the problem with failing predictions, that have been failing for decades and the latest is that arctic sea ice will be gone very soon, in fact in 2015 it was mooted by some that the tipping point had been reached and nothing would bring the arctic sea ice back. Since then it has rebounded as has world wide sea ice cover and strangely the C02 has not dipped but continued to rise at a steady pace. So the fluctuations have little to do with C02. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 28, 2022 16:22:15 GMT
We have the problem with failing predictions, that have been failing for decades and the latest is that arctic sea ice will be gone very soon, in fact in 2015 it was mooted by some that the tipping point had been reached and nothing would bring the arctic sea ice back. Since then it has rebounded as has world wide sea ice cover and strangely the C02 has not dipped but continued to rise at a steady pace. So the fluctuations have little to do with C02. But less than 1/4 of the 1981-2010 mean Arctic Sea Ice amount so the long term trend is not good at all. nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ |
|
)
