Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
Disgruntledgoat said:
Tell you what mate, go to an East African farmer whos seen the dry season extend 30% in the last 20 years and tell him that.

Of course, you'll also have an explanation for the increased frequency and severity of tropical storms and the 80% reduction in arctic pack ice over 50 years.
Click to expand...
The explanation is we are in an interglacial period the planet SHOULD be warming so quoting symptoms of warming is merely confirmation of the null hypothesis ie natural forces are doing their thing and your examples confirming the cause as man made co2 bomb at first principle level.

Slavishly following headlines without checking the ACTUAL science is the baseline fallacy of the whole canard. The hiatus in temps (sic IPCC) as co2 continued to rise empirically demonstrates the hypothesis is bust it really is that simple.

Add in the ONLY long term science re the co2/temp relationship (800k yrs of ice core samples) irrefutably showing co2 does NOT cause global warming and it's undeniable you and the similar minded are being taken for a ride.

Sorry, dems da facts
 
Barry Rathbone said:
The explanation is we are in an interglacial period the planet SHOULD be warming so quoting symptoms of warming is merely confirmation of the null hypothesis ie natural forces are doing their thing and your examples confirming the cause as man made co2 bomb at first principle level.

Slavishly following headlines without checking the ACTUAL science is the baseline fallacy of the whole canard. The hiatus in temps (sic IPCC) as co2 continued to rise empirically demonstrates the hypothesis is bust it really is that simple.

Add in the ONLY long term science re the co2/temp relationship (800k yrs of ice core samples) irrefutably showing co2 does NOT cause global warming and it's undeniable you and the similar minded are being taken for a ride.

Sorry, dems da facts
Click to expand...

Let's say you're right. Science is built on scepticism after all... What's the downside to us all living more sustainably?
 
Prevenger17 said:
You say this a lot, but yet have no evidence of your own, whereas everyone here has fired peer reviewed studies out of a cannon at you. Maybe... you're just a complete idiot idk? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Click to expand...
You proffered NASA's opinion piece and the debunked "97%" that never said man made co2 was going to cause anything "dangerous" as per the Obama quote given to you. You do't seem to have a clue what peer review is which probably explains your continued failure to supply the requisite peer reviewed paper I asked you for. Maybe you're just utterly out of your depth
 
Disgruntledgoat said:
Let's say you're right. Science is built on scepticism after all... What's the downside to us all living more sustainably?
Click to expand...
I answered this earlier but this "industry" is making a few people very rich snaffling trillions from public funds on an annual basis monies that could be used for solving the multitude of genuine problems around the world. Your examples would be better addressed with actual monies going to help mitigate present day issues that people face rather than spoofery about a trace gas effect in 100yrs.

One in two of us will be affected by cancer let's put te monies there - a genuine problem
 
Barry Rathbone said:
You do't seem to have a clue what peer review is which probably explains your continued failure to supply the requisite peer reviewed paper I asked you for.
Click to expand...



I'm still not sure what you're talking about and I don't think requisite means what you think it means. You seem to be using the word to try and make what you're posting sound smarter which is great stuff tbh. I posted a NASA webpage with a list of all the agencies and organisations whose official stance is that climate change exists and is primarily driven by human behaviour. Each one of their peer-reviewed papers is either cited or directly linked and the rabbit hole can go as deep as you want, as they also cite peer-reviewed papers. All the non-American agencies are listed and cited there too. Soz Barry, but I'm not going to do any more googling on your behalf, because I suspect that nothing I ever link or post will ever exceed Whatsupwiththat.com in your estimation
 
Barry Rathbone said:
I answered this earlier but this "industry" is making a few people very rich snaffling trillions from public funds on an annual basis monies that could be used for solving the multitude of genuine problems around the world. Your examples would be better addressed with actual monies going to help mitigate present day issues that people face rather than spoofery about a trace gas effect in 100yrs.

One in two of us will be affected by cancer let's put te monies there - a genuine problem
Click to expand...


Can't we do both?
 
Prevenger17 said:
I'm still not sure what you're talking about and I don't think requisite means what you think it means. You seem to be using the word to try and make what you're posting sound smarter which is great stuff tbh. I posted a NASA webpage with a list of all the agencies and organisations whose official stance is that climate change exists and is primarily driven by human behaviour. Each one of their peer-reviewed papers is either cited or directly linked and the rabbit hole can go as deep as you want, as they also cite peer-reviewed papers. All the non-American agencies are listed and cited there too. Soz Barry, but I'm not going to do any more googling on your behalf, because I suspect that nothing I ever link or post will ever exceed Whatsupwiththat.com in your estimation
Click to expand...
Not a single citation from NASA constructed with empirical evidence rather than computer modelling concludes "Global warming is man made and dangerous" THAT is the requisite paper I asked for and you have consistently failed to supply. No wonder you have given up googling you can't find something that is not there

NASA GISS the shifty little group trading on the NASA name to promote climate fear were the subject of a petition calling them out by genuine scientists and astronauts from NASA proper, see here https://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4?r=US&IR=T
 
Barry Rathbone said:
What? Throw money down the drain on a proven fallacy about man made co2 and line the pockets of shifty politicos and media wallahs. Doesn't get my vote at all
Click to expand...

No, reduce our use of unsustainable fuels and materials, mitigate rising sea levels, increasingly frequent droughts, soil erosion, protect endangered species, ensure the world is generally habitable in 500 years time AND fund cancer research.

Even if we disagree on the cause of the above, the fact they are happening is pretty undeniable.
 
Disgruntledgoat said:
No, reduce our use of unsustainable fuels and materials, mitigate rising sea levels, increasingly frequent droughts, soil erosion, protect endangered species, ensure the world is generally habitable in 500 years time AND fund cancer research.

Even if we disagree on the cause of the above, the fact they are happening is pretty undeniable.
Click to expand...
No need to rush regarding fossil fuel exhaustion new supplies are being found daily in addition all the new technologies are built on fossil fuel usage with battery technology being contingent on slave labour digging out lithium etc. The other matters you raise have nothing to do with man made co2 the general husbandry of the planet re sea level movement soil erosion is nothing new Holland being a good example of how land can be reclaimed/protected even when wearing clogs
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top