"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Maybe for a pre school creche

Do you just swallow everything you're told without questioning it? Do you think the majority is always right? Do you understand how climate science works, and are youn willing to listen to respected scientists who think you might be mistaken.

dav3 wrote: »

I think he makes a very good point.

The . was well argued.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Who says?

Links?

He’s right about the ozone layer rectifying itself but that’s because human action was taken to reduce CFC emissions.

https://www.theverge.com/2016/6/30/12067830/ozone-hole-antarctica-healing-study

Sweetemotion wrote: »

They now say the ozone layer is being healed because of the less use of aerosol cans, dispite the cars, boats, planes and probably the other million things still affecting it.

The use of Aerosol cans was what was affecting the ozone layer. Not all emissions cause the same effect.

In particular it was the use of a chemical called chlorofluorocarbons. That was phased out over time (beginning in the 70s).

So scientists saw a problem in the atmosphere, found a chemical emission was to blame, we reduced the use of this chemical, and the ozone layer healed.

I’m not sure this works the way you think as a rebuttal of the scientific method with regards to what is causing climate change, or what to do to fix it.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Do you just swallow everything you're told without questioning it? Do you think the majority is always right? Do you understand how climate science works, and are youn willing to listen to respected scientists who think you might be mistaken.

Respected, ie they support your confirmation bias.

Anthracite

Sweetemotion wrote: »

They now say the ozone layer is being healed because of the less use of aerosol cans, dispite the cars, boats, planes and probably the other million things still affecting it.

This is the problem, everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if it's absolute nonsense based on basic ignorance about stuff you could google in seconds.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Respected, ie they support your confirmation bias.

Well, Richard Lindzen is a retired professor at MIT so he's hardly stupid

Anthracite

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Well, Richard Lindzen is a retired professor at MIT so he's hardly stupid

Yeah, cos there's only one kind of stupid.

mickdw

The heat wave is caused by global warming. The cold snap is due to global warming. The flooding is due to global warming.
I don't buy it. I believe in natural cycles of weather and temperature. Any records in existence are only a tiny snapshot of time Versus the length of time the earth has been there and as such should not be taken as the all important reference.
I believe the planet can cope with change and will see change over time. We had the ice age, now we don't. That is a major climate shift yet we are here and further more, it wasn't action of man or the internal combustion engine that brought that change around.
When we look at most current weather events, it's typically the hottest day since ..... or the most rain since...... rarely do we see a record being broken so I wonder what was the man made issue in 1976 that caused the long hot summer that year?
Are we are humans doing something right that has now returned the weather to that of 40 years ago? Is this how the weather is supposed to be or is this the climate as damaged by man?

chalkitdown1

mickdw wrote: »

I don't buy it. I believe in....

And what are your credentials, doc?

I believe in Santa Claus therefore he does exist. Ditto for the tooth fairy.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Well, Richard Lindzen is a retired professor at MIT so he's hardly stupid

Whereas if he did recognise man made climate change, he's be another loony liberal elite in an echo chamber.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Whereas if he did recognise man made climate change, he's be another loony liberal elite in an echo chamber.

No, I'm merely saying that people shouldn't try and silence any dissent from the consensus view, especially when they don't know anything about science

Annasopra

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Do you just swallow everything you're told without questioning it? Do you think the majority is always right? Do you understand how climate science works, and are youn willing to listen to respected scientists who think you might be mistaken.

Of course I dont just go with the popular flow. Have you not seen how unpopular my views can often be on this site? Seriously?

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

No, I'm merely saying that people shouldn't try and silence any dissent from the consensus view, especially when they don't know anything about science

When you throw words like that around so frivolously they lose all meaning, case in point. Voicing an alternate opinion is not shutting down debate, it is debate.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

When you throw words like that around so frivolously they lose all meaning, case in point. Voicing an alternate opinion is not shutting down debate, it is debate.

Labelling people 'deniers' isn't an attempt to discredit them?

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Labelling people 'deniers' isn't an attempt to discredit them?

Well... they're denying climate change. It's a fairly objective use of the word.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

No, I'm merely saying that people shouldn't try and silence any dissent from the consensus view, especially when they don't know anything about science

People shouldn’t automatically accept non consensus views when they know nothing about science.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Well... they're denying climate change. It's a fairly objective use of the word.

oh come on. Yes, they use the term in such a benign way

Harry Palmr

Creative83 wrote: »

.

Mods close the thread. In fact close any thread where the OP deletes his post and wanders off happy that he has started the er fire. And then ban them.

Pherekydes

Flat Earth creationist imbecile?

Gravity is only a "theory", so fly, my friend (out the window).

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

oh come on. Yes, they use the term in such a benign way

What exactly is your point here?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What exactly is your point here?

That the believers in man made climate change are extremely intolerant

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

That the believers in man made climate change are extremely intolerant

Do you intend to present any sort of cogent argument at all for that? When you see people on this site do nothing but lazily dump Youtube videos it's hard to be open minded.

Anthracite

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Labelling people 'deniers' isn't an attempt to discredit them?

I'm sure we won't find anything you posted where you tried to discredit the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who say that AGW is real. Because that would make you a hypocrite.