Whoa. You’re getting your info from YouTube? Why didn’t ya say?
Nice try “scientists”.
Current Affairs Environmental Stuff
- Thread starter orchard
- Start date
- Status
Whoa. You’re getting your info from YouTube? Why didn’t ya say?
Nice try “scientists”.
Tipp blue
If I agreed with you, we’d both be wrong.
Not all of it.. some of it yes. Like I've said before things that fly in the face of the hoax don't get much media coverage, great barrier reef has zero chance of recovery scientists say but then when it recovers it's not widley reported just probably the same scientists coming up with reasons why this is not good news.
The forest fires reported as the worst graph starts in 1986 the low point.. I found out about graphs going back further on YouTube then look up said information on Google and sure enough it's true.. you laugh at the as you say "Scientists" I'm quoting while the ones people on here are jizzing over expect the population to make conclusions based on incomplete data.
Last edited:
Dread to think what all that searching for climate science denial will do to your YouTube algorithm.
Tipp blue
If I agreed with you, we’d both be wrong.
It brings me to compleat data sets which are verifiable with Google searches.
Not sure where you're going with this. No climate scientist is saying that a 6 year drought is "proof" that climate change is happening. Climate change doesn't hinge on forest fires and hasn't ever figured into any projection models. Politicians have claimed this is "proof" but they aren't climate scientists.The frequency/magnitude of droughts, just going to ignore the droughts that lasted for a hundred plus years in the past then.. I guess the current 6 year drought is proof enough of man made climate change.
Could California's Drought Last 200 Years?
Ocean temperatures, wind, and the weather pattern in the Pacific have contributed to the drought.www.nationalgeographic.com
CO2 used to lag temperatures if the temperature went up the CO2 went up over the following years but that was only before the industrial revolution for some reason it's opposite now in the last 100 ish years. How anyone could believe that "a completely different physical-biological process is going on" but only for the last 100 years is beyond me.
NASA Scientific Visualization Studio | Ask A Climate Scientist - Lagging CO2
Is there any merit to the studies that show that historical CO2 levels lag behind temperature, and not lead them?Climate scientist Peter Hildebrand, Director of the Earth Science Division at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, says yes, there's merit to those studies. In the pre-industrial age...svs.gsfc.nasa.gov
I understand it most certainly is beyond you, hence why were having this exchange. I don't think it's too difficult to see that massive increases in population size (from <990 million to 7.2 billion in the last 200 years), industry, travel, consumption, pollution, etc. play a role in all this. This is what Hildebrand is referring to. The switch is precisely the issue that is worrisome.
Tipp blue
If I agreed with you, we’d both be wrong.
It's clearly tied to climate change said no scientist ever.
Redirect Notice
www.google.com
^^^You are not very good at this. There is simply not a single climate scientist even mentioned in that google news article you linked to.
Tipp blue
If I agreed with you, we’d both be wrong.
Sounds good. Since you seem to have lots of expertise in questioning the experts, why don't you try to 1) understand their study and 2) refute it. Here's the link to the original study:
Radware Bot Manager Captcha
iopscience.iop.org
And by the way, keep in mind that what I originally said was the magnitude of burned acreage can't be used as a good index of comparison between past and present because people fought fires differently back then, and there were far far more trees/acres to burn (no one denies that a major year-long drought occurred in California during the 1930s). Your original comparison lacked this important contex, which is typical of superficial pseudo-scientific analyses that miss the main point and the main body of evidence--more simply, forest fires in California are highly peripheral to this global accumulation of human-induced climate change.
I'll wait...
Tipp blue
If I agreed with you, we’d both be wrong.
So basically you are saying I can't use past examples of natural extream weather, but the extreme weather now is man made, right I see now you are actually a climate scientist... and the only evidence allowed to be used is starting at low points.
Calafornia had centuries long natural droughts in the past "Irrelevant" temperature in the past has been on many occasions much warmer than today "Irrelevant" there has been many multiples of CO2 in the atmosphere compared to today "Irrelevant" there has been many occasions when there were no permanent ice sheets on the planet "Irrelevant" sea levels have been much higher and lower than today "Irrelevant"
Billions of years of extream climate change have been cancelled because only the past hundred years or so are relevant. Then again not all of it is relevant, coral dying was proof but its recovery isn't evidence of anything, a hot day in antartica was proof but the coldest 6 months ever recorded is an anomaly and not evidence of anything.
Polar bears were predicted to be all but gone by 2030 due to melting ice the population has never been healthier now their demise has been pushed back to 2100. Time and time again predictions have failed, artic ice should have been gone in the summer every year since around 2008.
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
Polar bear populations have “never been healthier”? Well that’s demonstrably not true.
Scientists have been guilty of over-exaggeration in the past and indeed in the modern day - as such you see laughable things like this.
www.liverpoolecho.co.uk
However, that doesn't mean all science on this is wrong, or even most of it. There's ample evidence of the human impact on global warming at this point, even if most of it starts at 1850 due to statistical limitations on what we know.
So there's no real doubt anymore that mankind is affecting how the climate changes; the only remaining doubt is as to certainty in regards to how much it does. Any scientist/anyone who says they're 'certain' about how this plays out are lying; they are not, they are very educated guesses but they remain guesses at this point.
Personally, I'm a pragmatic sceptic on climate change - as in I accept fully mankind has some/most effect on what is happening, but I think the geopolitical realities of the world mean attempts to stop it instead of mitigate it at this point are foolish, as shown by COP. No politician anywhere is going to make life harder for their voting age populace and try to sell it as necessary to stop something that they can't see impacting their own lives. You'll get fluff speeches and nothing more so as to leverage the theoretical, political benefits of being 'green' without doing anything of substance.
I'd like to be wrong, but I expect 2 degrees plus of an increase and a gradual shift to deal with the consequences of that when it becomes a reality and when we have the tech to do something about it. The climate activists deserve some of the blame for this too - while they've achieved a lot, they weren't realistic with their aims and their tactic was having an autistic teenage Swedish girl yell at world leaders about 'doing stuff', instead of 'here's where will be affected, this is what we need to mitigate it, do it or face the total blame for inaction if you don't'.
Two parts of Merseyside could become a separate island
And other parts of the region could be completely submerged under water, according to alarming new research
However, that doesn't mean all science on this is wrong, or even most of it. There's ample evidence of the human impact on global warming at this point, even if most of it starts at 1850 due to statistical limitations on what we know.
So there's no real doubt anymore that mankind is affecting how the climate changes; the only remaining doubt is as to certainty in regards to how much it does. Any scientist/anyone who says they're 'certain' about how this plays out are lying; they are not, they are very educated guesses but they remain guesses at this point.
Personally, I'm a pragmatic sceptic on climate change - as in I accept fully mankind has some/most effect on what is happening, but I think the geopolitical realities of the world mean attempts to stop it instead of mitigate it at this point are foolish, as shown by COP. No politician anywhere is going to make life harder for their voting age populace and try to sell it as necessary to stop something that they can't see impacting their own lives. You'll get fluff speeches and nothing more so as to leverage the theoretical, political benefits of being 'green' without doing anything of substance.
I'd like to be wrong, but I expect 2 degrees plus of an increase and a gradual shift to deal with the consequences of that when it becomes a reality and when we have the tech to do something about it. The climate activists deserve some of the blame for this too - while they've achieved a lot, they weren't realistic with their aims and their tactic was having an autistic teenage Swedish girl yell at world leaders about 'doing stuff', instead of 'here's where will be affected, this is what we need to mitigate it, do it or face the total blame for inaction if you don't'.
Tipp blue
If I agreed with you, we’d both be wrong.
Really?
they have become a pest
Polar bear numbers in Canadian Arctic pose threat to Inuit, controversial report says
Report bitterly contested by scientists who say threat comes from climate change, which has pushed bears closer to humans – not because the population is growing
Really?
they have become a pest
Polar bear numbers in Canadian Arctic pose threat to Inuit, controversial report says
Report bitterly contested by scientists who say threat comes from climate change, which has pushed bears closer to humans – not because the population is growingwww.theguardian.com
You can't dismiss short term graphs with climate change and then use one in another argument mate lol lol lol
Truth is these are all projections. Sea ice decline and historic conservation efforts means in the short term you might see fluctuation in numbers, but over the next 50 or so years there will probably be a population decline for them. Probably being the operative word.
- Status