Treacle Toes
Time
We wait, that's what we do. We wait for the credible sources of these alternative facts. 
Dinesh D'Souza (US author/twat) scrapes the barrel with Greta Thunberg/Nazi children comparison
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Proper Tidy
Arsed
You Tube
Proper Tidy
Arsed
Nah I think BA is right, this one is real, down the youtube rabbit hole
Nylock
I hate 'these days'...
True, those ones trotted out by denialists are an utter crock of shite for instance.
It's easy to not be susceptible to such persuasion when your head is so far up your own arse you can't hear what they're telling you. Lets see the research and academic credentials that allow you to make such sweeping statements regarding the view of 99% of the scientific community...
The IPCC at the dawn of the hottest decade and a half on record... you mean those guys yeah? Oh, and btw, he didn't say we had a decade until the planet was destroyed -but you probably knew that already. If you didn't then I'd suggest you actually watch 'an inconvenient truth' -plus the follow-up....
The IPCC, again, and just to correct you before you make a bigger arse of yourself than you already are: the 12 year deadline is to get us to a 50% chance of keeping future warming to 1.5 degrees centigrade. Maybe you are happy to make all of life's big decisions on a coin-flip, but that doesn't work for most of the rest of us..
So, anyway, not until the Earth is destroyed but until the warming is of a level that is irreversible in any meaningful human-scale timeframe. Over 1.5 degrees introduces additional uncertainties in warming models that could include such delights as:
- runaway warming scenarios where gigatonnes of methane are liberated from both permafrost and deep-ocean clathrates,
- intensifying ocean acidification from a more CO2 enriched atmosphere which will fuck up a significant amount of oceanic biosphere,
- increasing desertification and food shortages as rainfall in breadbasket regions begins to fail in more-frequent-to-eventually-become-annual 'once in a generation' heatwaves and droughts,
- increased melt from the greenland and antarctic ice caps which will fuck up pretty much 75% of the human populace as vastly more numerous coastal populations abandon their settlements and move inland causing additional spinoffs such as wars and mass killings where populations too large to be sustained by the dwindling landmass turn against each other for scarcer resources (even with pie-in-the-sky technofixes working at full-capacity to try and alleviate the situation),
E2A-
I'll let you in on something: If international panels of scientists ever end up saying the Earth will actually be destroyed due to climate change in a decade; there will be zero that can be done to stop that and humanity had best make its peace with its maker...
Belittling her because of her age or Asperger's lower than contemptible. 'These peer reviewed scientists' are on the money, the only one being taken for a ride here appears to be you... So who's taking you on this journey?
One particularly reliable source I find useful is the climate change app on my iPhone, also known as the weather app.
For more in depth historic climate change data, try researching the Vostok ice core samples.
Treacle Toes
Time
Apparently in the 1970’s the climate change swivel eyed loons were warning of a new impending ice age (global cooling?) before settling on their holy crusade of global warming.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Exactly. All of this from someone who doesn’t know the difference between climate and weather.
Don’t we have a rule that those 12 years and younger aren’t really meant to be on here?
I see you are another one who enjoys sarcasm
Glad you didn’t bypass my reference to Vostok ice core samples though, I expect you’re still busy researching
keybored
Well done. You remember cat good.
He doesn't know the difference between sarcasm and idiocy either.
Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
Nylock
I hate 'these days'...
A lot of people come out with a lot of shit about the 70's that is either patently untrue or a massive misrepresentation of what went on... You appear to be one of them, I see...
Signal 11
also programmed for conversational english
If you think any of their claims are worth our time, state them here, explain why they are only published in a political magazine instead of a peer-reviewed journal, and address the rebuttals that have been given on the previous occasions they have been tried.
Nylock
I hate 'these days'...
So, essentially you are making my point by quoting a 6-year old article published in a far-right publication* citing one of the 1%-ers in the field... Well, that's me convinced!
First quote below the article:
You might want to apply some source checking before you embarass yourself further, friend.
*Quote from the linked wikipedia entry:
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
And I suppose we should ignore other people like NASA, Attenborough etc as a result? What's your agenda, caller?
So, essentially you are making my point by quoting a 6-year old article published in a far-right publication* citing one of the 1%-ers in the field... Well, that's me convinced!
First quote below the article:
You might want to apply some source checking before you embarass yourself further, friend.
*Quote from the linked wikipedia entry:
Attacks source, ignores content then quotes the fountain of all knowledge - Wikipedia
Poot
My wife thinks I work too hard
What, you mean this data that shows what happens in the past?
Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming | New Scientist
But which, according to the New Scientist doesn't in any way contradict what we already know about global warming?
This was the first Google result, my friend.
Attenborough? Absolutely love his nature programmes but his employer (dear Auntie) has been scrutinised for its climate agenda:
In the very years when the global warming issue was becoming more controversial than at any time since the scare was first launched on its way in the 1980s, the BBC continued to promote the received orthodoxy on climate change and the political response to it without ever exposing either to serious questioning.
The BBC’s journalists went out of their way to publicise almost every alarmist claim the promoters of the scare could come up with, even after these had been shown to be without scientific foundation. Almost the only occasions on which they have paid attention to the views of dissenters from the orthodoxy has been when they have produced programmes designed to trivialise and caricature those views, portraying them as being held by only a tiny and disreputable minority of ‘deniers’. They have lent enthusiastic support to every political measure proposed to ‘fight climate change’, while consistently failing to explain the immense financial cost of those proposals and their enormous economic implications.
In their relentless promotion of the benefits of ‘renewable energy’, such as wind power, they have consistently endorsed the often absurdly exaggerated claims of the commercial interests involved in ‘renewables’, while failing to explain their practical shortcomings. In doing this, as this report will try to show, the BBC has not only failed in its professional duty to report fully and accurately on one of the biggest scientific and political stories of our time: it has betrayed its own principles, in three respects.
First, it has betrayed its statutory obligation to be impartial, using the excuse that any dissent from the official orthodoxy was so insignificant that it should just be ignored or made to look ridiculous.
Second, it has betrayed the principles of responsible journalism, by allowing its coverage to become so one-sided that it has too often amounted to no more than propaganda.
Third, it has betrayed the fundamental principles of science, which relies on unrelenting scepticism towards any theory until it can be shown to provide a comprehensive explanation for the observed evidence.
https://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/booker-bbc.pdf
Poot
My wife thinks I work too hard
The New American
I'm sure it's very scientific. Got any articles about the Ark in there?
Poot
My wife thinks I work too hard
This was written in 2011 by, as I understand it, a lobby group of grandees, economists and journalists headed up by Nigel Lawson. Maybe just keep looking at your phone app, to be honest.
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
Attacks source, ignores content then quotes the fountain of all knowledge - Wikipedia
That's pretty much what you've been doing, no?
Except it's YouTube rather than Wikipedia in your case.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
Since it hasn't been pointed out yet, I'd like to say that Al Gore is not a fucking climatologist, so it doesn't fucking matter what he said.
That said, I'm not fan of the more apocalyptic rhetoric coming from some quarters. Climate change is a big fucking problem, and I do think it can be solved. But if we're all doomed then what's the fucking point doing anything about it? That kind of talk is extremely dangerous.
That said, I'm not fan of the more apocalyptic rhetoric coming from some quarters. Climate change is a big fucking problem, and I do think it can be solved. But if we're all doomed then what's the fucking point doing anything about it? That kind of talk is extremely dangerous.
Similar threads
- Poll
