CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

posidonia wrote: »

I don't know, but by some form of transport would be my guess. Is that possible?

Fuelled by solar panels no doubt, given his holier than thou approach, and not just another jet-setting, multi-millionaire preaching from ivory towers to the poor and huddled masses.

https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/david-attenborough-net-worth/

posidonia wrote: »

Got bored with make sick insinuations have you? You're not actually an walrus expert either it seems...Time to change tack and go back to accusing people of hypocrisy I see...

More bored with your lack of answers and evasive methods.

I'm accused here of linking to 'skeptical' think tanks, yet I am not the one on here that is prone to hysteria about every single weather event that can be, and has been, explained by basic meteorology on this very thread, even though I read tons of peer-reviewed scientific lit on a regular basis...apparently.

I really do wonder who should 'open their mind' a bit more.

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

More bored with your lack of answers and evasive methods.

I'm accused here of linking to 'skeptical' think tanks, yet I am not the one on here that is prone to hysteria about every single weather event that can be, and has been, explained by basic meteorology on this very thread, even though I read tons of peer-reviewed scientific lit on a regular basis...apparently.

I really do wonder who should 'open their mind' a bit more.

You read so much that that you confuse meteorology with climatology

Every single weather event will have meteorological explanations even if the globe warms by 20c next week

Thargor wrote: »

Yeah posidonia why cant you open your mind like Oneiric to the fact that David Attenborough and the BBC Earth teams have been making nature documentaries all these decades in order to "get off" sexually on the suffering of animals in nature? Its the next Jimmy Saville scandal, only totally sane free thinkers like Oneiric can see it.

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

I confuse nothing.

Yes Mr Trump


Your ‘basic science’ is grossly simplistic. Weather is far more complex than that and it is a chaotic system where everything is causally linked to prior events and initial conditions.

I’ll let the experts talk for me
The UK Met Office know a lot more about weather than you or I
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-26084625

Dame Julia Slingo said the variable UK climate meant there was "no definitive answer" to what caused the storms.
"But all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change," she added.
"There is no evidence to counter the basic premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly rain events."

That was from 2014 btw, the evidence has only gotten stronger since then

'No definitive answer.. but all the evidence points towards..

Classic newspeak there.

If you are familiar with H.H Lamb, you'd know how he spoke of a huge increase in storm activity over the north Atlantic in the decades before the onset of last ice age (or was it the 'little ice age, I can't remember) and the explanation is simple: Colder air masses moving further south from their mean position created/create the conditions for more explosive cyclogenisis to more easily develop.

The winter of 2013/2014, to which no doubt she is referencing, was a winter with a pretty straight forward zonal flow. I thought climate change was to bring about a more wavier jet stream? Or is a straight running jet stream now part of the climate change model also? Also, global/NH temps in the winter of 2013/2014 were not far above average and if I remember correctly, were the lowest in some time.

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

So what have we learned from yesterday's exchange?

1. You can dismiss the claims of 'sceptics' by simply calling them sceptics. No refute of their claims necessary.

2. 'Experts' have ample time to dismiss what they must view as high profile sceptics, yet the climate alarmist nonsense we read and hear about on a near daily basis goes unchallenged, coz they are 'too busy doing science'. 2 + 2 = 3.

3. Distressing and disgusting images of unbearable animal suffering is OK if filmed by and used for propagandist purposes by the 'right' people in order upset children and adults alike as much as possible.

4. It is something akin to blasphemy to even dare question the methods of globe trotting millionaires.

5. Evasiveness is the name of the game when nothing of substance is to be have.

So, you've dropped the idea Attenborough 'gets off' by watching animals suffer have you?


Or would you care to repeat that deranged slur?

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

This is even more damning Possibility that the crew were at least partly to blame for the miserable deaths of those animals:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5Ji6ME3Vlo

/QUOTE]

And how are you going to blame Attenborough or cameramen for the 1978 walrus deaths? I'm sure you can find a way to do that...


Btw, are you going to repeat your deranged insinuation that Attenborough 'gets off' by watching animals suffer?

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

I'm not ruling out the possibility that that 1978 footage is fake. I mean, the Arctic was very, very cold in 1978 and there was lots and lots and lots of ice. So much ice in fact, that this was the height of the 'coming ice age' climate scare.

I note though that you haven't refuted anything claimed in that latest video, which I will take that at least you do not rule out the possibility that Sir Attonborough might not be quite the honest chap that he would have us believe.

Do you still think David Attenborough 'gets off' by watching animals suffer or do you take back that vile insinuation?

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

This is just getting worse and worse :(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7KTfPlCrgY

Do you still think David Attenborough 'gets off' by watching animals suffer or do you take back that vile insinuation?

Do you think feeding a polar bear is a safe thing for a cameraman to do?

Danno wrote: »

The ends justify the means with the greens and the media. They don't care as long as their agenda sells.

Huh? You also think a cameraman can safely feed a polar bear? Really???



Perhaps you also agree with Oneiric that David Attenborough 'gets off' by watching animals suffer?

Nabber wrote: »

The animals are just a pawns for him. His documentary style has slipped over the last 15 years or so. He changed from educational style to preaching.
I’d rather listen to Jeremy Irons now.

Animal plight has made Attenborough richer. His carbon footprint is larger than mine will ever be. It’s a double edged sword when you preach.

Animal documentaries as a whole have tanked. Creative editing is used to portray nature as a fun loving life, when in fact life is brutal. We are made to feel sad for animals lose their life, when this is part of the natural system.
I don’t like to watch animals starve, but I also except that animals starved and has done for millions of years.

Attenborough Ties any animal suffering to AGW. Much like our weather forecasters.
AGW fanatics like Arkasia think pre 1880 we lived in the garden of Eden.

I guess it's pretty easy to verbally attack a 90 year old.



Anyway, cut to the chase - do you also think Attenborough 'gets off' by watching animals suffer?



Further, do you think cameramen can safely feed polar bears?

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Jesus Christ, what are you like?! That's about the extent of your posting here. You've never made even one scientific contribution to this thread, which is in the Science forum, in case you didn't know. You've no interest in Science at all but are here merely as antagonist. Oriel and Coles packed their bags. Maybe it's time you did the same.

I only want to see if people think Attenborough 'gets off' by watching animals suffer.


I ask again because, while its a simple question, some people here seem to find it difficult to answer. Are you one of them?


Oh, and don't get at me - I didn't start making sick, baseless, libelous attacks on David Attenborough so address your sneers to those that did.

posidonia wrote: »

I only want to see if people think Attenborough 'gets off' by watching animals suffer.


I ask again because, while its a simple question, some people here seem to find it difficult to answer. Are you one of them?


Oh, and don't get at me - I didn't start making sick, baseless, libelous attacks on David Attenborough so address your sneers to those that did.

There you go asking me now. What is your deal?

Attenborough is a big boy and doesn't need someone on an Irish forum to defend him. Or do you actually think he reads Boards? He has done some excellent work down through the decades on the field in which he's qualified, zoology and geology, however he's joined the evergrowing list of those who see climate change as a good pulpit to shout from. His claims of late have not been based on the latest scientific observations, yet he gets to air them because of who he is. The Arctic is not losing ice. That's a fact. He says it is. That's a lie. Simple.