darkpagandeath wrote: » List of stuff that's already supposed of happened or killed us. Oil runs out. supposed to be 50 year left in the 60-70s Acid Rain. Ozone layer. Loads of money spent, Then realised it was a natural phenomenon at the poles. All the while sea level rising, My estimations on the reporting of various times we should be under 2 meters of ocean by now. C02 emission, And Ph change in oceans. Amazon cut down we all suffocate. Desertification In Africa, Famines. They all should be dead by now. Oceans fished to extinction, Should of happened by now. Famines everywhere due to food production not keeping up. Fresh water runs out. 2012 Solar flairs. Anyone think of anything else ?
Bongalongherb wrote: » There's a new documentary film being released on the 2nd of may 2016, in a few days that explains a lot of rubbish about global warming alarmists, they might learn something from this scientific film. It's called 'Climate Hustle' In theatres and dvd 2nd may. http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/climate-hustle-will-rock-alarmists-to-their-core/
Samaris wrote: » We get one of these threads every couple of months. I've said it before and say it again, any scientist or group of scientists that manage to prove it's not happening has his/her/their fortune made. Also, studies into it have been going on since the '70s.
daheff wrote: » Not sure i agree with the global warming brigade....or at least not to the indisputable extent they make it out to be. I do agree though that we shouldnt be polluting the planet the way we do. Theres not enough evidential long term (thousands/millions of years) of data available to see about temperature changes (uptrends downtrends etc)
HensVassal wrote: » So thousands of scientists in the IPCC are just spreading bullshit? Why would they do that exactly? For the craic? I can understand climate change deniers spreading their message. They benefit from the fossil fuel industry or are paid by those who do.
darkpagandeath wrote: » List of stuff that's already supposed of happened or killed us. Oil runs out. supposed to be 50 year left in the 60-70s Acid Rain. Ozone layer. Loads of money spent, Then realised it was a natural phenomenon at the poles. All the while sea level rising, My estimations on the reporting of various times we should be under 2 meters of ocean by now. C02 emission, And Ph change in oceans. Amazon cut down we all suffocate. Desertification In Africa, Famines. They all should be dead by now.Oceans fished to extinction, Should of happened by now. Famines everywhere due to food production not keeping up. Fresh water runs out. 2012 Solar flairs. Anyone think of anything else ?
smash wrote: » Plenty have already done that. They either get fired or dismissed as being a quack. The biggest driving force behind the climate change debate was Al Gore. He had the most to profit from it too! Remember when it wasn't climate change and it was called global warming? That didn't suit his agenda.
darkpagandeath wrote: » Who denied climate change ? Climate change happens all the time throughout history.
HensVassal wrote: » Are you serious? There are numerous lobbies and "think tanks" out there whose sole purpose is to deny that climate change is real. And the fact that there have been ice ages in the past so the rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution is nothing to get alarmed about really is a weak argument.
Samaris wrote: » Rubbish. To..basically all counts. There are very few reputable scientists in the field (dentists do not count) that can manage to ignore all of the evidence collected over the last few decades and those that do generally ARE quacks.
Samaris wrote: » People keep talking about the money and conveniently ignoring that the big money...actually isn't in the "yes, it's happening" side, it's in the vested interests that have too much to lose by a move away from fossil fuels. It's a gap in logic that I cannot quite comprehend.
Samaris wrote: » Al Gore is one of many big (non-scientific) names that have spoken out about it and tried to raise awareness. Not done a bad job of it either, but he's far from the only one. It really isn't a massive conspiracy aimed to get Al Gore money!
smash wrote: » I don't think too many people are completely ignoring evidence, but people with vested interests are hugely over playing our part in the issues regarding clime change.
smash wrote: » I agree to an extent, the motor industry is an example of this industry which didn't want to change. But it's not where the big money lies.
smash wrote: » Al Gore has become a billionaire as a result of his agenda. He has also slipped up over and over... http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06/26/al-gore-sells-his-soul-to-big-carbon-again/
Samaris wrote: » How, who and where? Who are these "people"? What are the vested interests? What vested interests are against the theory of climate change? What do -they- lose if the evidence is accepted?
Samaris wrote: » Believe me, it sure as hell isn't in scientific research.
Samaris wrote: » That is actually pretty irrelevant. He isn't a scientist, he's spoken on what he read and interpreted from actual research. He spoke pretty well, if a bit simplistically, but eh, if that's what's needed to educate on the basic concepts, whatever.
smash wrote: » I didn't say there were vested interests are against the theory of climate change, I said there are vested interests pushing the agenda of climate change. Pushing it to the point where they are actively over playing our part in the issue
Samaris wrote: » I know you didn't. I was pointing out the other side. What are the vested interests on both sides? Where is the big money? Honestly, if you look deeply into it, you will see where the big vested interests are. I try to avoid talking about them and stick to the science only, but my god, it's frustrating to constantly see the "oh, the vested interests are the shadowy carbon tax politicians!" while Big Oil and the motor industry is sitting there grinning and whistling innocently.
Samaris wrote: » Oh yes, there's money in technology. Always has been, always will be. It's rarely the -scientists- that see it, being as they tend to be more academic and less practical. But it is not easy to buy off a whole lot of scientists to produce research (or "research" as it would be if it was not in good faith) that is not in accordance with what they can see and measure*. And to manage to buy them all (or very close to all) off? Consistently? Over decades? Yep, there's money in technology and we are an inventive species. People have seen something that they reckon needs doing (or a way to cash in on the whole issue of carbon being on peoples' minds) and have invented, marketed and sold it/them. It's a capitalist society. It doesn't change the science behind the original movements though.
