nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Creative83

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ancapailldorcha

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Any evidence for that claim?

Did a quick google. Here is a link from NASA:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

From Forbes:

https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fuhenergy%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F12%2Fritchie-2_121416.jpg

uptherebels

mickdw wrote: »

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?

The problems is that you don't seem to understand the actual problem. Having a rare weather event isn't an issue, its the trend towards having more frequent extreme weather events due to the effect of man on global weather patterns.

[Deleted User]

mickdw wrote: »

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?

On the subject of the 1976 summer....

https://twitter.com/SimonLeeWx/status/1021130752199725059?s=19

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

Twenty Grand

jacksie66 wrote: »

I do believe in man made climate change but I don't believe its as bad as some people are making out. The cynic in me sees it as a way for big corporations to make money. Yes we are damaging the planet with our overpopulation, pollution, destroying forests and general bollox acting but the way some people and governments go on you'd swear Limerick will be the Venice of ireland in a few years. Our tiny country doesn't really make a difference when it comes to emissions when you compare us to the likes of China, India or the USA. Yet they're trying to force is into hybrid and electric cars. And I'm sure some particular people out there are making balls of cash from this horrible wind turbines that have ruined the look of our countryside..

Everybody has a part to play. Our emissions are tiny compared to the biug players, but our emissions stay local. Local air pollution is a big deal in Dublin and Cork, so every effort to fix it should be made.

I love wind turbines. Actually drove through a wind farm in Indiana last year and it was fantastic. Turbines as far as the eye can see in every direction. Generating power with no noise, no emissions. Lovely.

uptherebels

jacksie66 wrote: »

I do believe in man made climate change but I don't believe its as bad as some people are making out. The cynic in me sees it as a way for big corporations to make money. Yes we are damaging the planet with our overpopulation, pollution, destroying forests and general bollox acting but the way some people and governments go on you'd swear Limerick will be the Venice of ireland in a few years. Our tiny country doesn't really make a difference when it comes to emissions when you compare us to the likes of China, India or the USA. Yet they're trying to force is into hybrid and electric cars. And I'm sure some particular people out there are making balls of cash from this horrible wind turbines that have ruined the look of our countryside..

I don't that believe just because we are a tiny contributor that we should just carry on as is. This is a global problem that requires a global response.
Businesses will make balls of cash wether it's wind turbines,nuclear, coal etc. That's a perculiar complaint to have.
I don't know about you but I would take the view of a wind farm outside my window over a coal plant or nuclear power station any day

Anthracite

Basil3 wrote: »

On the subject of the 1976 summer....

https://twitter.com/SimonLeeWx/status/1021130752199725059?s=19

You can't expect some people to understand the difference between weather and climate.

That's really complex stuff for those folks.

1eg0a3xv7b82of

mickdw wrote: »

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?

There are more serious problems facing the world then climate change.
europe and america are politically shifting to the extreme politically. these are dangerous times we are living in alright and it has **** all to do with the climate change. some very dangerous men have risen to power or are close to taking power in the western world.
donald trump is a dangerous man but i believe within 20 years the US will have a real right wing religious lunatic in power. someone who will press the button.
we are going to wake up one day and germany, france and the UK will have extreme right politicians in control.
there is no need to worry about the man made climate change problem as it will be soon solved by a man made reduction in the worlds population.

K.Flyer

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Do you know why the northern hemisphere is currently on fire? If the answer is no then you are not fit to challenge climate change.

If you are referring to the Californian and Greek fires etc, the official theory line is arson.
People either deliberately setting fire to the dry vegetation or carelessness.

People are getting their tails in a knot this year over a few weeks of good weather. Look up the temperature readings from 1976 with nearly a full week of over 30'c.
We have had some bouts of dire weather since then.
Its all cyclical.

Anthracite

Esteban Deafening Supper wrote: »

There are more serious problems facing the world then climate change.
europe and america are politically shifting to the extreme politically. these are dangerous times we are living in alright and it has **** all to do with the climate change. some very dangerous men have risen to power or are close to taking power in the western world.
donald trump is a dangerous man but i believe within 20 years the US will have a real right wing religious lunatic in power. someone who will press the button.
we are going to wake up one day and germany, france and the UK will have extreme right politicians in control.
there is no need to worry about the man made climate change problem as it will be soon solved by a man made reduction in the worlds population.

If new chunks of the world become uninhabitable, or simply can't produce enough food for the current population, we'll see fun and games that make WW2 look like a scuffule outside a nightclub.

AGW does seem like the sort of thing where the precautionary principle should be applied...what's an acceptable risk for global carnage/the end of civilization? 1%? 5%?

Would we risk it on a 50/50? A hunch?

Anthracite

K.Flyer wrote: »

People are getting their tails in a knot this year over a few weeks of good weather. Look up the temperature readings from 1976 with nearly a full week of over 30'c.
We have had some bouts of dire weather since then.
Its all cyclical.

This line of argument has already been totally debunked.

https://twitter.com/SimonLeeWx/status/1021130752199725059?s=19

Weather/climate - learn the difference.

Thoughtform

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

That the believers in man made climate change are extremely intolerant

Oh come on - various types of people believe, given the stacks of evidence, in climate change. People of all political persuasions - conservatives too (maybe that might make you feel ok about facing up to it).

You are literally saying "I don't believe in it" even though masses of in-depth research contradicts you, just because "the liberal left" believe in climate change. That is as impressionable as those you are condemning. As you suggest, think for yourself - forget about someone's political persuasion dictating how you view things, and just do the research. People are only contradicting you (if that's what you're considering intolerant) because they have grounds to. They're just not going to deny the evidence. They aren't holding such a view on a mere whim.

Even the person who started the thread has effectively admitted they're wrong/were just on a wind-up.

Maybe you're right (I hope you are) but it's looking very unlikely.

Celticfire

Anthracite wrote: »

This line of argument has already been totally debunked.

https://twitter.com/SimonLeeWx/status/1021130752199725059?s=19

Weather/climate - learn the difference.

Here is the difference between June last year and this year.

Not quite so scary and dramatic. Also this map and the maps you've posted are using a smoothed radius of 1200km to make up for huge areas with lack of temperature data. Here is the same map that I've posted but this time smoothed out to 250km. Note the massive amounts of grey areas that there are no temperature readings for.

Twenty Grand

K.Flyer wrote: »

People are getting their tails in a knot this year over a few weeks of good weather. Look up the temperature readings from 1976 with nearly a full week of over 30'c.
We have had some bouts of dire weather since then.
Its all cyclical.

Anthracite wrote: »

This line of argument has already been totally debunked.

Weather/climate - learn the difference.

This is the level of intellect you're dealing with here.

Some poster says "rabble rabble what about 1976?!"

1976 gets debunked immediately.

20 mins later another poster says "rabble rabble what about 1976?!"

There's no point arguing. People believe they're entitled to their opinion, even if they haven't a f*cking clue what they're talking about.
I'll happily admit I haven't a f*cking clue about climate change, so I don't go around spouting uninformed nonsense, gleaned from some tinfoil hat conspiracy websites.

DickSwiveller Returns

Thoughtform wrote: »

Oh come on - various types of people believe, given the stacks of evidence, in climate change. People of all political persuasions - conservatives too (maybe that might make you feel ok about facing up to it).

You are literally saying "I don't believe in it" even though masses of in-depth research contradicts you, just because "the liberal left" believe in climate change. That is as impressionable as those you are condemning. As you suggest, think for yourself - forget about someone's political persuasion dictating how you view things, and just do the research. People are only contradicting you (if that's what you're considering intolerant) because they have grounds to. They're just not going to deny the evidence. They aren't holding such a view on a mere whim.

Even the person who started the thread has effectively admitted they're wrong/were just on a wind-up.

Maybe you're right (I hope you are) but it's looking very unlikely.

You've just erected a giant strawman and argued against. When did I say I don't believe in it. I can't stand groupthink and don't being bullied in to accepting a position. Here is an example of what I mean
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-global-warming-paris-climate-agreement-nature-geoscience-myles-allen-michael-grubb-a7954496.html

For years climate skeptics had been criticizing the computer models used to measure temparature change. they were proved right, yet at the time the herd would have screamed at them and called them 'deniers'.

Twenty Grand

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

You've just erected a giant strawman and argued against. When did I say I don't believe in it. I can't stand groupthink and don't being bullied in to accepting a position. Here is an example of what I mean
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-global-warming-paris-climate-agreement-nature-geoscience-myles-allen-michael-grubb-a7954496.html

For years climate skeptics had been criticizing the computer models used to measure temparature change. they were proved right, yet at the time the herd would have screamed at them and called them 'deniers'.

The question has been asked many times before, what is your experience with Climate Change? What makes you an expert? What makes you an authority with the ability to say the current research is wrong?
Simply "believing" something to be true doesn't make it true.

Did you even read the article you linked?

The study, published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience, does not play down the threat which climate change has to the environment, and maintains that major reductions in emissions must be attained.

DickSwiveller Returns

Twenty Grand wrote: »

The question has been asked many times before, what is your experience with Climate Change? What makes you an expert? What makes you an authority with the ability to say the current research is wrong?
Simply "believing" something to be true doesn't make it true.

Did you even read the article you linked?

Did you read my post? I said the skeptics were proved right that warming was being exagerrated yet you would have criticized them for even daring to suggest this was the case.

I have no experience, like most people commenting here. I just don't like the stridency of those who believe in it. There's a fierce intolerance towards anyone who dares question some of the findings

Twenty Grand

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Did you read my post? I said the skeptics were proved right that warming was being exagerrated yet you would have criticized them for even daring to suggest this was the case.

I have no experience, like most people commenting here. I just don't like the stridency of those who believe in it. There's a fierce intolerance towards anyone who dares question some of the findings

They weren't exaggerated. Nobody was deliberately misled.

Computer models generated 10 years ago said one thing. Observed evidence in the last 10 years showed these models were slightly off.
Models were adjusted with this new data.
That's just how science works. you act based on the information you have right now.
Bear in mind that countries have been limiting their carbon emissions over the last decade, so that might play into this too.

You're expecting them to accurately predict the climate 10, 20 and 30 years in advance.
We can barely predict the weather a week in advance, but that's not an excuse to stop trying and do nothing.

I would criticise anybody for making a baseless argument with no empirical or logical data to back it up.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Celticfire wrote: »

Here is the difference between June last year and this year.

Not quite so scary and dramatic. Also this map and the maps you've posted are using a smoothed radius of 1200km to make up for huge areas with lack of temperature data. Here is the same map that I've posted but this time smoothed out to 250km. Note the massive amounts of grey areas that there are no temperature readings for.

I can’t see those images but...

The difference between this year and last year not being as significant as the difference between this year and 1976 proves the opposite of what you claim. It means warming anomalies are more common.

It would be extaordinary if the grey areas were negative anomalies given the heat around them. If they were they would affect the areas around them, as air moves around.

Thoughtform

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

You've just erected a giant strawman and argued against. When did I say I don't believe in it. I can't stand groupthink and don't being bullied in to accepting a position. Here is an example of what I mean
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-global-warming-paris-climate-agreement-nature-geoscience-myles-allen-michael-grubb-a7954496.html

For years climate skeptics had been criticizing the computer models used to measure temparature change. they were proved right, yet at the time the herd would have screamed at them and called them 'deniers'.

Ok apologies, you didn't say "I don't believe in climate change" but one of the first things you said was it's a cause the liberal left attaches itself to, and that it's a fashionable cause. Classic provocation. So you can't really complain when you get a negative response if you're going to be resorting to that kind of talk.

If you questioned it using back-up, without those inflammatory phrases, I for one would hear you out.

But people don't just believe in climate change because they're left-wing (I'm in the centre politically) or because it's fashionable (this implies it's a fleeting, frivolous thing - it's been a concern for at least three decades), they believe because there is a stack of evidence and research supporting it. People who disregard this are going to be referred to as deniers - what else could they be called?

Disagreement is not intolerance. Disagreement containing aggression is, but not all climate change believers resort to aggression.

endacl

dav3 wrote: »

I think we've found Danny Healy-Rae's account.

“God above is in charge of Danny Healy-Rae’s account and we here can’t do anything about it”.

mickdw

chalkitdown1 wrote: »

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.

Well I'm a degree qualified Engineer so by definition I must have an ability to look at the facts and come to a reasonably logical conclusion even if not in my field.

super_furry

I like the idea of 'lunathicks' - the eejits from the moon!

TheQuietFella

I personally don't believe in the global warming craze as when you consider that without the human element the ice age ended without our influence! Our planet is spinning irregularly around a very big nuclear reactor (The Sun) and that also goes through phases of changes in temperature.

Franz Von Peppercorn

TheQuietFella wrote: »

I personally don't believe in the global warming craze as when you consider that without the human element the ice age ended without our influence! Our planet is spinning irregularly around a very big nuclear reactor (The Sun) and that also goes through phases of changes in temperature.

That’s a non sequitur. The fact that the climate changes itself over a long time does not preclude that we can also change the climate.

Anthracite

mickdw wrote: »

Well I'm a degree qualified Engineer so by definition I must have an ability to look at the facts and come to a reasonably logical conclusion even if not in my field.

Uh...how so?

Presumably there are no creationist engineers out there then?

kylith

XKCD has put together a handy chart of global average temperature, for anyone who is of the 'cyclical' bent.
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png

TheQuietFella

kylith wrote: »

XKCD has put together a handy chart of global average temperature, for anyone who is of the 'cyclical' bent.
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png

So when governments saw what taxes they could get from this it's suddenly gone off the scale!

Twenty Grand

TheQuietFella wrote: »

So when governments saw what taxes they could get from this it's suddenly gone off the scale!

Any evidence of government interference in the data collected? Or is this just another baseless soundbite?

Anthracite

TheQuietFella wrote: »

So when governments saw what taxes they could get from this it's suddenly gone off the scale!

The real problem is the current industries that are run by people with 1-5 year horizons, heavily invested in the way things have always been done, who have the money to buy pet scientists, pet politicians and pet mouthpieces to distort the debate and confuse people who are naturally contrarian (like me) or natural right-wingers who are suspicious of science and change.