Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 370 comments are related to the topic:
For climate change charlies
For climate change charlies
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 370
|
By:
yah see - with the bears they have it made - they go over the top ho ho
|
|
By:
There is nothing left to say Charlie,, Get out your copy out of the NIST report to reaffirm your status as a grade one goon. Different subject but same old bullshyte.
 Then get out your video of the hunt for the weapons of mass destruction. Oh and by the way dont forget millions of innocent people died while they searched for them. Just another fairy tale but this one has no happy ending. Because of the likes of you the criminals can continue on rampaging through generations without fear of being compromised. As far as i am concerned the likes of you are complicit to the crimes because you refuse to open your f**king eyes |
|
By:
Dont forget everyone is well aware of your comprehension of great speeches .. You total goon
|
|
By:
Anyone with any sense will look at what you post and expect that the exact opposite is likely to be the truth. So f**king sad !!
|
|
By:
Mexico - the link I posted made international news. It was a prediction by 11k 'scientists' that we face a 'climate catastrophe'.
This doomsday scenario is based on data going back a paltry 40 years. The same 'scientists' will say the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. A 40 year sample to warn of catastrophe is ignorant and unscientific. It actually beggars belief. The timeframe used is embarrassing in the extreme. Any journalist worth their pay would have questioned this study. None in the MSM did. They all embraced it as truth. I would expect any reasonable person to treat this study with the derision it deserves. |
|
By:
Charlie08 Nov 19 16:57Joined: 01 Dec 01 | Topic/replies: 28,030 | Blogger: Charlie's blog
I actually do look at the evidence unlike you who just looks at loontubes. If you do look at the evidence i would strongly recommend you apply for a version in braille because you are obviously not seeing it for what it is. Greta ffs. Mickey Mouse ffs. Nist ffs. WMDs .. ffs... Shanksville ffs.. The pentagon . ffs........ on and on and on |
|
By:
Injera
I really think you are deliberately putting a misleading slant on the paper under discussion. The doomsday scenario of 40 years is actually this: https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806 Exactly 40 years ago, scientists from 50 nations met at the First World Climate Conference (in Geneva 1979) and agreed that alarming trends for climate change made it urgently necessary to act. Since then, similar alarms have been made through the 1992 Rio Summit, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and the 2015 Paris Agreement, as well as scores of other global assemblies and scientists’ explicit warnings of insufficient progress (Ripple et al. 2017). Yet greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are still rapidly rising, with increasingly damaging effects on the Earth's climate. An immense increase of scale in endeavors to conserve our biosphere is needed to avoid untold suffering due to the climate crisis (IPCC 2018). So that is the 40 years they are talking about. They shouldn't be too hard to understand. |
|
By:
That should be that shouldn't but it's not important.
How on earth you can try and slag off a paper that starts off by saying they're looking at what's happened in the last 40 years and say "This doomsday scenario is based on data going back a paltry 40 years." is beyond me. They are looking at the last 40 years. That is the paper. They are not saying global warming data only goes back for 40 years as you are apparently trying to make out. |
|
By:
charlie the denier, is obsessed with Goreism and the thunderburger
|
|
By:
Injera
I still haven't a clue what your point is. You keep saying 40 years of data isn't enough (even though there is far more than 40 years) WTF has the age of the planet got to do with temperature rises in the past 1-2 hundred years ??? Are you really saying we been a billion years of data before we can decide if the Earth warmed between 1950 and 2019? BTW are you aware there is a theory which is well over a century old which demonstrates that CO2 (& other gases) can cause a "greenhouse effect "? So Injera- what do you suggest- just carry on changing the chemical composition of the Atmosphere for the next billion years - then we should have enough data to decide if that is a good or bad idea? |
|
By:
Again Moisok comes on here and mention the 16 year old school girl he is obsessed with.
Moisok- as mentioned already, she is not global warming . Do you think it is healthy for you to be obsessed with a 16 year old girl? |
|
By:
is a theory which is well over a century old
Blimey, that's conclusive then! Tell me, is C02 the lifeline of the planet, yes or no? You'll be aware that without a 'greenhouse effect' we'd all be dead. |
|
By:
Yes Injera
I do understand basic science. I am unaware of anybody saying we should remove ALL CO2 from the atmosphere. Is Oxygen the lifeline of the planet, yes or no? You'll be aware that without oxygen we'd all be dead. So should we double the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere? Is there any downside to having 40% oxygen in the atmosphere? |
|
By:
Depends what you mean by the lifeline of the planet. This is going to be old hat by the way.
|
|
By:
Please tell me you're not implying C02 is at those levels...
|
|
By:
Doubling you mean
injera |
|
By:
Hmm. Think you've got your decimal points confused.
Isn't it less than half a percent of the atmos is C02? |
|
By:
I like to start with Wiki and then you can refine the argument as it goes along. But in the case of CO2 levels there is no argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere |
|
By:
co2 is actually a very very very small part of it - I forget the figures but you are looking at microns a million million million p etc
and I hold a science degree so I am RITE so their |
|
By:
I am a scientist so I claim my prize!!!! Huzzah!!!!
|
|
By:
Yes injera
Less than .5% in atmosphere. I haven't claimed anything else. You state)correctly) that it has an important effect on temperature on the planet. So what happens is we almost double the amount. |
|
By:
Moisok
You may have your decimal point in the wrong place when you say "a million million million p etc" , but then again I really don't know what you are on about. As Injera stated , just under 0.5% |
|
By:
one of my family works for a nasty manufacturing polluter
they are very very keen on reducing ANY pollution and my family member is EXTREMELY annoying being a real tree hugger too we fight tooth and nail when we meet to be fair she told me about her factory polluting the area etc and one day there were some issues and they closed down the factory early to sort out what ever it was and check their detection systems even though the factory was paused so to speak they found the levels of pollution to be nearly the same it confounded the experts until they realised it was RUSH HOUR I am not sure what that tells us but be wary about predictions and thesis from analysis just saying |
|
By:
moisok always reminds me of one of those little kids when we were growing up who keeps "saying can I play, can I play" and everybody just ignores the little wimp.
|
|
By:
Or rather 0.05%
A very small percentage |
|
By:
my old adage
the person on tv is there for a reason the tv have got them there for a reason who is behind the tv company who is behind the person appearing why is he there who put him there what do they allow him to say and who challenges the 'expert' when the enquirer/presenter has hardly any knowledge of the subject left or right - burning or cooling - in fact on any subject a lot of you simply do not think independently |
|
By:
No you can't play moisok.
|
|
By:
the problem with mex charles and the others - they have no respect for science or investigation
it is a shame they are clearly very clever but not adapting to the scientific method |
|
By:
Sorry moisok you're not allowed to pay you're good enough.
|
|
By:
play not pay
|
|
By:
I'll try that again. Sorry moisok you're not allowed to play you're not good enough. Apologies to anyone who thought he was allowed to play.
|
|
By:
Mexico - oldest trick..apologies. I said less than 0.5% which is true. You sadly agreed.
0.0391% of the atmosphere is C02. |
|
By:
I did agree injera. & also agree with you that is under 0.05%
It doesn't really matter too much- the global warming theory is based on changes rather than absolutes anyway. On a different note & slightly the same. - It does show the usefulness of using appropriate units of measurement. For CPO2 they use ppm as easier to make a printing mistake saying 0.0344% rather than 344. Likewise for distance, mass etc. The conspiracy theories tend to use Imperial units & science community SI units. UK is almost unique to mix & match between the two systems. |
|
By:
but faced with these facts they become deniers - deniers of science - because it is not their version it there opens you up to ridicule and abuse - they have tried it on elsewhere and continue to deny scientific fact ho ho
what on earth will this lot do when in just under 12 years we find we have not dropped off the perch!!! |
|
By:
Moisok
Nobody but Nobody has said we will "drop off the perch" in 12 years time. As mentioned many many times & invited you to comment many many times. The 12 years quote was about keeping temp rise below 1.5C , or do you disagree Moisok. If so just provide a link. Who said we will all be dead in 12 year So? Is it nobody?? |
|
By:
is this worth reading?
|
|
By:
Yes Moon. I would recommend reading.
Didn't you learn at Primary school or had you already left the education system . It isn't too late to learn Moon. |
|
By:
ding dong, you are a funny man.
why would I read opinions? there are no facts. |
|
By:
North of England has had a months rain in just over a day.
Records are being SMASHED REPEATEDLY all around the globe. When London/Essex etc is over run with high Autumn tides, you can all blame the migrants and the dole scroungers who are enjoying such lavish lifestyles on the sweat of the SPIV forumites at the Betfair dreamfactory. |
|
By:
I only have a degree in science but do understand the method. One of my friends is an internationally celebrated professor of phyics. He would always insist on FACTs - it was quite an education for me I must say.
Much of what is being trolled as FACTS is suggestion and prediction based on recent events. PREDICTIONS so what happened to my 'EXTINCT ' bears - they insisted on them - but didn't know what the fk they were talking about when you look into it you find bears are loners, hard to measure etc etc etc but they based a whole CRISIS DISASTER EXTINCTION (with foxe's glacier mint photo on a sliver of ice) scare campaign in unsubstantiated selective science. Or should we just say they lied. |