Just found the above chart backing up what I have been saying for years.
Global warming is a wholly natural event, if humanity disappeared tonight, global warming would still happen.
It seems like a lot of GW narratives are falling apart, if you track all the doomer claims from a decade ago, they have not worked out? the Great Barrier Reef seems to be setting new records which was not part of the plan
I realize you don't particular like answering questions, but I'll take the trollbait for a bit.
The great barrier reef is doing very poorly due to human activity. Fact. https://skepticalscience.com/great-barrier-reef-decline.htm
The 'predictions' you're talking about - quote them. Because you're probably misrepresenting some headline you might've read somewhere.
NB: I doubt you'll answer directly. That's not your posting style.
do you have to couch your post so?
for exaample is there anything to this? the general question is without revising the past or tweaking models to fit, what do the score boards say?
No surprise. Steve Milloy. Even denies evolution. But, what would you expect from a Fox news guy.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Steve_Milloy
And yeah, the threats to the barrier reef remain and worsen, even if it's expanded recently.
You're really scraping the bottom of the barrell by using him as your source 🙄
true or false is all I need thanks. the wider question is if a model is predictive its worthwhile if it cant its not. Surely there must be a list of claims made around 2000 that can be ticked off either way?
You're wanting me to answer a question that wasn't put to me?
Your source is not a credible source and presumably was chosen by you for this reason i.e. it suits your personal agenda.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/08/coral-bleaching-great-barrier-reef-australia 5 mass bleaching events in the last 8 years doesn't quite match Milloys narrative.
Mass bleachings, in case you didn't know, represent mass die offs of the alga which feeds the coral reef system and are caused by exceptionally warm sea temperatures.
Hang on there, would you like to explain that one. Because id like to no How do you get climate without weather. How do you get weather without climate. You can’t, there both interlinked.
things are changing in the right direction. Over 100 million hectares are being managed regeneratively around the world.
Change is so slow it’s just human nature, it’s whats got us this far.
There is a ton of stuff out there to help you understand what climate and weather are and the relationship between them. Start here…
https://www.met.ie/cms/assets/uploads/2024/07/OP-Fun-Facts-What-is-Weather.pdf
https://www.met.ie/cms/assets/uploads/2024/07/OP-Fun-Facts-What-is-Climate.pdf
Once you get a better understanding of the two and how while related, are very different from each other, then come back here and we can continue with a sensible and fact-based discussion.
Agree with you 100%
And this is where the Green party lets itself & people down. Imo that kinda problem is easily fixed by changing policy & fines. So much low hanging fruit that would make instant Positive environmental, economic & social changes.
Change isn’t coming from the establishment & institutions. it’s only gonna come from us each doing our little bit of good.
you cant have a climate without weather and you can’t have weather without a climate there the same thing.
there the same thing
OMG!!!
Your trying to be clever but reality you cant have weather without a climate.
Repeatedly though the Greens political argument always fall down when its proven that climate has changed repeatedly before the anthropocene.
It could be argued that overall the anthropocene could actually be positive.
I didn't say that one was independent of the other nor did I make the ridiculous remark that they are the same thing!
I wish you well with the junior cert geography exams.
Well the way you respond to that poster gave that impression.
oh your one to talk considering the amount of garbage and smartalic comment’s you’ve posted in this thread.
I don’t think there’s been much positive about human’s biodiversity management in all this time since the Anthropocene. We have been continuously burning, over hunting, killing, polluting & destroying our environment.
Unfortunately for us in the present day we have accelerated this immeasurably & now the damage is so evident we have no choice but to change & act.
Yet life expectancy has doubled, infant mortality has massively reduced, yet these advancements are seen as disaster by Malthusians.
We know from evidence that the Nile culture arose in reaction to a period of cooling that turned savanna into desert, thereby forcing humans to adapt from plains hunters to irrigation cultivators. A rise in temperatures could actually lead to more greening, and again like the Nile civilisation humanity can adapt.
The Green agenda seemed to have replaced organised religion in the supplying of doom promising.
Pointing out that the claim you push isn't peer reviewed or remotely proven isn't garbage. 😊
Needing to read a peer reviewed paper to no growing plants is better for biodiversity than bare ground says all we need to no about how smart you are.
nobody would say they are bad things, but we have to acknowledge they have come at the cost
The age of agriculture was started after we had a couple thousand year’s of hunting & gathering. To say our ancestors might have over hunted, over fished & wrecked their environment isn’t beyond the realms of possibilities when we’re still doing it today
Don't bother man.
Boards.ie is an RTE worshiping cult at this stage.
GW, Climate change etc. is pure anti-science nonsense. Proven time and time again. This will not change the mind of someone so deeply brainwashed by RTE.
Making a scientific claim with no proof isn't remotely credible... 😊
Growing plants being better for biodiversity is Backed up by many many scientific study’s.
there all just confused, Spend too much time seeing people on tv & the Internet saying cows are bad for the environment.