Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 967 comments are related to the topic:
Climate Change
Climate Change
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 967
|
By:
blank
That black line that shoots up sharply is the problem. Drippen So your evidence is that because doomsday deadlines have come and gone that global warming isn't happening? |
|
By:
you will be fed lies by the first ones who can reach the news and media with 'shock' stories (a la extinction tactics) the more the outrageous and shocking and scary the better and so it goes on
loads a munny in it |
|
By:
Boyfriend?
|
|
By:
moisok
Still on about polar bears but you offer no evidence that global warming isn't happening. Do you have any? |
|
By:
go and look at the list freely available on the internet
don't be a lazy boy Boyfriend ? |
|
By:
Yes boyfriend you read correctly.
|
|
By:
where did I mention a boyfriend?
|
|
By:
Nothing wrong with that by the way. I hope you enjoy the Pride parades in your your high heels and stockings.
|
|
By:
Charlie 13 Oct 19 19:15
I'm not asking for the impossible. I'm asking for evidence by deniers who are quick to say that there is no global warming but can't say why. You're talking about one or two people who expressed an opinion that may have been wrong. That doesn't mean global warming isn't real. There are many thousands of scientists who say it is. Of course there are, to say anything else - to offer some balance even- would see their careers ended by virtue signalers and zealots like yourself. It's the same reason there are suddenly no comedians on TV who don't tow the official PC line. |
|
By:
Of course there are, to say anything else - to offer some balance even- would see their careers ended by virtue signalers and zealots like yourself. It's the same reason there are suddenly no comedians on TV who don't tow the official PC line.
That's such an easy thing to say but there's no substance to it. |
|
By:
climate changes all the time
depends where you are I have been to many of them a lot were very very hot and some were very very cold hope to have helped |
|
By:
It didn't.
|
|
By:
where did I mention a boyfriend?
|
|
By:
Charlie, not as easy as following a media led herd.
|
|
By:
Watching football now.
You didn't but from what you keep on about the way you dressed I came to a conclusion that you have a boyfriend. |
|
By:
He's a denier charlie
 |
|
By:
proves amongst other things that you assume something with no proof and that you are a sexist by implication
AND the internet is covered with massive numbers of studies disproving climate change claims |
|
By:
well - charlie found I had a boyfriend based on what? Which turns out to be false Wonder what else he bases his 'facts' on. Wonder what any other of his claims will be - false?
|
|
By:
So your evidence is that because doomsday deadlines have come and gone that global warming isn't happening?
You see Charlie Drippin it's like this: I post: The earth warms up and the earth cools down. No one is denying that. And from that you conclude that I've said that climate change isn't happening. You really are as thick as two short planks matey. |
|
By:
No one dare quote them on the MSM mo, a job loser. Corbyn's brother is a huge sceptic I think.
|
|
By:
Charlie Drippin
|
|
By:
I will say again
I have been to lots of climates some very hot some very cold |
|
By:
I would have thought the most likely cause of the Earth's temperature changes (that's if there are any happening at the moment) would be the Sun's solar cycles and sunspots activity.
|
|
By:
Climate catastrophists need to explain why your "consensus" of scientists keep moving the goalposts.
|
|
By:
Global Temperatures increased by 0.04 degrees Centigrade this year.
That's not global warming. That's a tiny, natural variation. |
|
By:
Odd how those who are intelligent enough to look at both sides of an argument are labelled as pariahs by those who blindly follow one side.
|
|
By:
Earth’s temperature levels are regulated primarily by changes in the sun’s activity. The intensity of solar activity influences changes in our climatic system.
|
|
By:
The climate changes regularly as does the Earth's magnetic polarity .
|
|
By:
Lost amid the coverage of Swedish teen activist Greta Thunberg at last week’s U.N. Global Climate Summit were the 500 international scientists, engineers and other stakeholders sounding a very different message: “There is no climate emergency.”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/29/scientists-tell-un-global-climate-summit-no-emerge/ Needless to say these 500 have been criticised for opposing the narrative. This side of the Pond, they've been totally ignored. Very unscientific to not consider alternative views. |
|
By:
How easy it is to brainwash people here these days, almost formulaic. Good to see a bit of discussion exists in other lands.
|
|
By:
Safe to say, none of these 500 dissenters will be receiving the funding afforded to the "consensus" mouthpieces
 |
|
By:
October 12, 2019
Is Climate Change Doomsday Coming? By Mark Deutschle TIME Magazine published an article on June 24, 1974, titled "Another Ice Age?," stating that "the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing." This climate theory didn't last long, as the planet apparently began to warm slightly in the latter 1970s, paving the way for the introduction of a new theory called global warming. Unfortunately, the planet failed to warm up as predicted, so yet another climate theory was created called climate change. This all-encompassing label meant that incidents of heat waves, cold snaps, rain, drought, hurricanes, and so on could all be identified as problems resulting from man-caused climate change. In a 2005 Gallup poll asking people to identify America's biggest problem, global warming didn't even make it into the top ten concerns. Climate change adherents understood that if this lack of concern persisted, they would never achieve their goal of radically reducing fossil fuel use throughout the industrialized world. So marketing efforts to "sell" climate change to an unconcerned public ramped up, starting with Al Gore's 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth, which earned Gore an Oscar and Nobel Prize. Even though a British court ruled in 2007 that the film "make[s] a political statement and ... support[s] a political programme" and contains nine serious science errors, climate change theorists began to use the movie both here and abroad to influence millions of public school students to become believers in man-caused climate change. One should not be surprised by a 2018 Gallup poll that shows that 70% of Americans aged 18–34 are somewhat or very worried about global warming. Today, 40 states use a public school science curriculum that identifies mankind as the major cause of global warming, so it is clear that the "selling" of global warming continues to be increasingly effective. The fact that majorities of our Millennials and Generation Z embrace the theory of man-caused global warming is beginning to have a dramatic effect in America. Millennial Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has over 5 million followers on Twitter, recently said the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change. Fighting climate change is an essential part of Ocasio-Cortez's proposed New Green Deal legislation, which, if enacted, will require the U.S. to nearly eliminate all use of fossil fuels within ten years. Most of the Democrats running for president, the mass media, celebrities, and the Left are all singing the same refrain as Ocasio-Cortez, warning of a rapidly approaching man-caused Climate Doomsday, which can be avoided only by taking immediate and drastic action. For example, at a September town hall on climate change, former vice president Joe Biden said "We have to take combustion engine vehicles off the road as rapidly as we can." However, many millions of Americans, especially those over the age of 30, are not so sure that the climate doomsayers have the facts on their side. Therefore, I propose that we have a nationally televised debate on carbon emissions and man-caused climate change. Let Americans hear the relevant facts so they can decide for themselves if we need to completely gut our economy now in order to save the planet later. Maybe George Soros or Tom Steyer would like to put up a big pot — say, 10 million dollars to the winner, just to make things interesting. The list of topics that could be debated is large and expansive. Is climate forecasting really a collection of computer programs, each of which contains hundreds if not thousands of assumptions about the future? Do these computer programs purport to tell us the climate in 50 years without including clouds or sunspots in their formulations? Have these predictive programs been successfully applied to any other fields of study? If a team of scientists is smart enough to create a computer program that can accurately crunch together thousands of variables and assumptions over a fifty-year period to create "the settled science" of man-caused climate change, then why wouldn't that same dream team of scientists take a few days over Thanksgiving and create a computer program to predict stock prices on Christmas Eve? Take a little break from turkey and football, become richer than Jeff Bezos, and have a Happy New Year, right? Climate change advocates claim to tell us, within a tenth of a degree, how hot it was in the very distant past, even though reliable historical temperature records go back only several decades, if even that far. Were thermometers calibrated to one tenth of a degree 40 or 50 years ago? Were situational records kept for each instrument back then, so you could determine today if a thermometer placed in service 50 years ago was located under a tree or had a road or building constructed next to it at any point in time? If a thermometer's location evolved from a cornfield to being in the middle of a five-acre parking lot, wouldn't that drastically change its readings? How can we adjust for these changes accurately if we don't even know they occurred? Let's debate the content of Al Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, which is still being shown widely to schoolchildren across the USA. Since Gore's inflammatory and never materialized claims of impending catastrophes were based on "settled science" produced by climate change computer models, what lessons should we learn? Should we still be showcasing Gore's documentary if it's been debunked? There are other debate topics that would be interesting. Looking back, has any country besides the U.S. decreased carbon emissions in the last ten years? Looking ahead, which countries will be increasing their emissions the most? Since today's biggest polluters also have rapidly rising levels of carbon emissions, would it make any difference at all if the U.S. cut its carbon emissions by 50%? What would happen to the U.S. per capita income if emissions were cut by 50%? If cutting U.S. emissions by 50% will have no effect on an impending climate crisis, what should America do now? Should we invade the biggest polluter, China, next year in order to save the planet? We need to have this debate now so Americans can see if we are blithely skidding toward an irreversible Climate Doomsday. Post-debate, let's enlist the IRS to help individuals to fight climate change by using their own personal funds. Amend the IRS Form 1040 by adding two checkboxes, so taxpayers could increase their taxes by either 50% or 100%, with all of the additional money going to fight climate change. Currently, the loudest advocates for climate change tend have the largest personal carbon footprints, leaving them open to the charge of being hypocrites. Overnight, climate activists would have a golden opportunity to become hugely credible as they shared their tax returns with the public, proving that as true believers, they're actually putting their money where their mouths are. Taking a public stand, more money for the government, and saving the planet — sounds simply irresistible, doesn't it? |
|
By:
November 28, 2012
Fourteen Is the New Fifteen! By Arvind Kumar According to the leaders of the global warming doomsday cult, the average surface temperature of Earth is 14 degrees Celsius (57.2 degrees Fahrenheit), but this is a new value which has quietly replaced the original average of 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees Fahrenheit). In March 1988, a few months before NASA's James Hansen asserted before the Congress that global warming was in progress, the New York Times quoted him as saying that he used 59 degrees Fahrenheit as the average global temperature to calculate the temperature variations. One of the scientists, Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, said he used the 30-year period 1950-1980, when the average global temperature was 59 degrees Fahrenheit, as a base to determine temperature variations. In July of the same year, a report in the Connecticut-based newspaper The Day was consistent with this claim. According to the Day's report on Hansen's congressional testimony: Dr. Hansen informed the lawmakers that the first five months of 1988 were the hottest five-month period on record, averaging four-tenths of a degree above a 30-year (1950-1980) norm of 59 degrees Fahrenheit. Although Hansen's recent publications provide his version of the differences from the base temperature for various years, he is careful enough not to provide either the observed temperatures or the value of the baseline temperature. However, Hansen at one time revealed his base value in an academic publication. That paper, "Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," appeared in Science in August 1981 and states: The mean surface temperature is Ts ~ 288 K. Two hundred and eighty-eight K, or 288 Kelvin, is the same as 15 degrees Celsius. A report in the Schenectady-based Daily Gazette indicates that Hansen and his colleague Helene Wilson used this value at least as late as 1992. Thus, Hansen consistently used 15 degrees Celsius as the baseline average for several years. James Hansen was not the only person to use this value. When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was set up soon after Hansen's 1988 testimony before the Congress, came out with its First Assessment Report in 1990, a table on page xxxvii of the report listed the "Observed Surface Temperature" of Earth as 15 degrees Celsius. Yet another person who used 15 degrees Celsius as the global average temperature was Anthony J. McMichael, an activist professor whose e-mail promising to pull strings in the Australian government figured in the Climategate scandal. According to McMichael's 1993 book, Planetary Overload: Global Environmental Change and the Health of the Human Species: Average temperature over past 10,000 years = 15°C As it turned out, the average temperature of 15 degrees Celsius was an inconvenient value that did not support the allegations of global warming. In 1996, Michael Mann (who shot to fame during the Climategate scandal as the creator of "Mike's Nature trick" to "hide the decline") co-authored a paper titled "Greenhouse Warming and changes in the seasonal cycle of temperature: Model versus observations." The paper pointed out that the predictions made by climate models were not consistent with observed data and the variability in temperature likely resulted from natural phenomena. ... the signature of greenhouse warming is scarcely evident in the observational data[.] ... It is possible that observed trends in phase, largely influenced by mid-latitude continental interiors, do not arise from greenhouse warming, but rather from natural variability. Such a notion is reinforced by the fact that marginally-significant trends are found in the control GFDL annual cycle, presumably due to organized century-scale internal variability. If, on the other hand, the observed variation in the seasonal cycle truly represents a "fingerprint" of greenhouse warming, the GFDL and CCM1 models do not appear capable of capturing the detailed responses of the seasonal cycle to greenhouse forcing. ... Discrepancies between the observed and model-predicted trends must be resolved before a compelling connection can be drawn between 20th century changes in the behavior of the annual cycle in temperature, and anthropogenic forcing of the climate. Significantly, Mann used 15 degrees Celsius as the baseline temperature while calculating the parameters of the annual temperature cycle (see Figure 2 in his paper). Although he could have picked any value in the cycle, he picked 15 degrees Celsius, and it is reasonable to assume that he did so because it was the accepted long-term global average temperature. Not long after Mann's paper was published, the Worldwatch Institute, an organization based in Washington, D.C., came out with the 1997 edition of Vital Signs, its annual publication. The publication had a chapter with the title "Global Temperature Down Slightly." In literature published after the 1997 report by Worldwatch Institute, the leaders of the global warming movement seem to have started using 14 degrees Celsius for the global average temperature. In 2002, the Sydney Morning Herald quoted James Hansen, who mentioned this new average. This year the Earth's average temperature was 14.64C, compared with the long-term average of 14C, said James Hansen, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who analyses the data collected from thousands of weather stations around the world. The IPCC too now uses 14 degrees Celsius as its base temperature, as can be seen from a graph that is part of its 2007 document. (As an aside, it was in 2007 that IPCC won the Nobel Peace Prize. IPCC certainly deserved a Nobel Prize, but it should have been for literature, as the organization had excelled in writing fantasy.) More recently, a 2011 report by the Government Accountability Office attributes an estimated average surface air temperature of 287 K, or 14 degrees Celsius, to James Hansen and his colleagues. But Hansen and colleagues have estimated that Earth's actual average surface air temperature between 1951 and 1980 was approximately 287 K (14 degrees Celsius) (Hansen et al. 2010). It is hard to pinpoint the exact date when the change from 15 degrees to 14 degrees was introduced. It most likely happened sometime in 1997, and definitely no later than January of 1998. The 1998 edition of the annual publication of Worldwatch Institute uses 14 degrees Celsius as the global average temperature and provides details of how it was informed of the change from 15 degrees Celsius. On page 69 of the report, a footnote below the table listing the global average temperatures for several years states: Base number is 1 degree Celsius lower than in earlier Vital Signs. On page 174 of the same report, we see the explanation for the change. In earlier versions of Vital Signs, Worldwatch added the temperature change reported by the Goddard Institute to an estimated global temperature of 15 degrees Celsius, but the institute has since informed Worldwatch that a better base number would be 14 degrees Celsius. James Hansen, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, email to author, 18 January 1998. In other words, James Hansen sent word that 14 IS THE 15. and that little masterpiece tells you all you really need to know about this scam ( In a long line of many ) |
|
By:
Spent 30 minutes perusing this thread and have come to the conclusion that @charlie is obsessed with @moisok's 'boyfriend' despite @moisok's lack of reference to said 'boyfriend' .
Deflecting attention onto the perceived sexuality of someone who counters ones argument suggests that one has no counter counter argument to the counter argument . Therefore it is easier to attempt to ridicule the counter arguer with some totally unrelated and irrelevant homophobic slur . @saddo made a very valid point @ 07.53 . @charlies response is as follows :- Charlie • October 13, 2019 7:54 PM BST That's such an easy thing to say but there's no substance to it. That is a sentence that can apply to both sides of the argument which is precisely why it is necessary to continue to debate the subject . There is scientific 'evidence' to support both sides of the argument but wider publicity is given to , and more credence is placed on , the scientists that support climate change than those that question climate change . I use the term 'question' climate change rather than climate change 'denier' because to use the word 'denier' implies that anyone who questions climate change is stubbornly refusing to accept factual evidence (eg. Holocaust denier) . The evidence is NOT necessarily factual . The term 'climate change denier' is simply an attempt to ridicule and slur anyone who has the temerity to question climate change (as pointed out by @saddo) . It's an often used tactic to silence any opposition to the mainstream agenda . @charlie used the term 'climate change denier' in his opening post (along with 'no end of loonies' , 'strawmen' , 'glib remarks' etc) and then takes great pride in pointing out the lack of responses . Who in their right mind is going to respond to a post when they have already had such labels and accusations directed at them ? I'm sure they'd rather enter into a debate with someone who will at least give them respect and engage in reasoned debate . @charlie has no intention of giving either ! |
|
By:
Charlie • October 13, 2019 7:15 PM BST
I'm not asking for the impossible. I'm asking for evidence by deniers who are quick to say that there is no global warming but can't say why. You're talking about one or two people who expressed an opinion that may have been wrong. That doesn't mean global warming isn't real. There are many thousands of scientists who say it is. I'm not asking for the impossible. I'm asking for evidence by atheists who are quick to say that there is no god but can't say why. You're talking about one or two people who expressed an opinion that may have been wrong. That doesn't mean god isn't real. There are many thousands of religious leaders who say god is real . On reflection I think you are asking for the impossible . Is Climate Change the new GOD ? Millions of people blindly following the unseen in the vain hope that they will be proven correct long after they have passed over  |
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
If I was in PR I'd look at the protestors and think - upper middle class lefties and lib dems, missed out on their St Petersburg 1917 moment, and probably because they were too busy building careers in the public sector or NGO's once they got either their Arts degree or worse still, one in social studies. Sitting at home now, may have been able to retire only with a final salary pension, mortgage free, money in the bank, inherited own parents' house to boot. It needs to also include normal everyday people because these protestors are not normal and everyday people. Should have expanded that base before letting leash on the streets.
|