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

Sweetemotion · 28-07-2018 11:58pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Wow, that was pretty pathetic from "I'm a scientist" McElhinney.

Bangs on about the 98% figure being nonsense as there is no list but then 2 minutes later uses "Everyone knows that Europe is failing" as the basis of her argument.

:rolleyes:

Is she wrong about the 98%?

DickSwiveller Returns · 28-07-2018 11:58pm

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Didn't 97% of scientists at one time also claim the the earth was flat?

That's the thing. The climate change alarmists are just like the clerics who hounded Gallileo. They don't want their interpretation challenged. A lot of this has to do with the power of conventional wisdom/fashion and very little to do with actually thinking for themselves.

Twenty Grand · 28-07-2018 11:58pm

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Didn't 97% of scientists at one time also claim the the earth was flat?

Nope.

GreeBo · 29-07-2018 12:00am

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Is she wrong about the 98%?

About the veracity of the figure or how it was arrived it?

Canis Lupus · 29-07-2018 12:00am

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

That's the thing. The climate change alarmists are just like the clerics who hounded Gallileo. They don't want their interpretation challenged. A lot of this has to do with the power of conventional wisdom/fashion and very little to do with actually thinking for themselves.

TBF you just read like a contrarian for the sake of it.

Hey man, I'm no sheep. Who are scientists to tell me me stuff. I'll believe what I want to believe.

Twenty Grand · 29-07-2018 12:00am

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

That's the thing. The climate change alarmists are just like the clerics who hounded Gallileo. They don't want their interpretation challenged. A lot of this has to do with the power of conventional wisdom/fashion and very little to do with actually thinking for themselves.

Total bullsh*t and equating the 17th century church to modern scientists is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Sweetemotion · 29-07-2018 12:04am

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

That's the thing. The climate change alarmists are just like the clerics who hounded Gallileo. They don't want their interpretation challenged. A lot of this has to do with the power of conventional wisdom/fashion and very little to do with actually thinking for themselves.

It's something else to make money from. I hear the green party want to put an extra €2 on a bag of coal this year, saying people wont be affected by it.

I wonder would they saying that if they had only the state pension to live on?

Sweetemotion · 29-07-2018 12:05am

GreeBo wrote: »

About the veracity of the figure or how it was arrived it?

How it was arrived at.

Sweetemotion · 29-07-2018 12:07am

Twenty Grand wrote: »

Total bullsh*t and equating the 17th century church to modern scientists is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

That's what the 17th century scientists were saying about the 11th century scientists.

Twenty Grand · 29-07-2018 12:20am

Sweetemotion wrote: »

That's what the 17th century scientists were saying about the 11th century scientists.

Which 17th century scientists about which 11th century scientists?

Sheeps · 29-07-2018 12:21am

I get her point about science not being a democracy, however it is largely up to a group of peers to tear the **** out of new bodies of work, so in a lot of cases if the majority think something is bull**** for good reason, then it's likely truth.

In any case, I don't think people ever thought the earth was flat with in the science community in Europe through out history. It's possible that religious nuts did, but I've heard that the common belief has always been that the earth is round.

WinnyThePoo · 29-07-2018 12:28am

Twenty Grand wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/03/is-the-climate-consensus-97-999-or-is-plate-tectonics-a-hoax

And here's a more recent one that agrees with me.

So the 97 percent figure is bull because something completely irrelevant you think is bull also.

So we've got

You like to do your own research
Climate change is fashionable
Something about gender pay gap
Cartoonists opinions on climate change
a guy who works for a industrial for profit think tank
Galilieo

XsApollo · 29-07-2018 12:32am

Scientists only know what they know at the time.
And when they know what they know at the time, they think that what they know is actual fact.
When in fact they don’t have a clue.

Twenty Grand · 29-07-2018 12:38am

XsApollo wrote: »

Scientists only know what they know at the time.
And when they know what they know at the time, they think that what they know is actual fact.
When in fact they don’t have a clue.

And you have a clue? Why don't you share that with the scientific community?

Reminds me of the Brexit "We're sick of experts" talk....

Birneybau · 29-07-2018 12:47am

Widespread drought to own the libs

XsApollo · 29-07-2018 12:49am

Twenty Grand wrote: »

And you have a clue? Why don't you share that with the scientific community?

Reminds me of the Brexit "We're sick of experts" talk....

Did I say I have a clue?
What’s brexit got to do with it lol.
I believe nobody really has a clue what’s going on and we havnt even scratched the surface of what we are and what the universe is.

My own opinion is earths climate cycles over a long period of time.
Gradually warming and then gradually cooling.

Twenty Grand · 29-07-2018 12:53am

XsApollo wrote: »

Did I say I have a clue?
What’s brexit got to do with it lol.
I believe nobody really has a clue what’s going on and we havnt even scratched the surface of what we are and what the universe is.

My own opinion is earths climate cycles over a long period of time.
Gradually warming and then gradually cooling.

You said that scientists haven't a clue. Therefor you must know something they don't, otherwise how do you know they haven't a clue.
The Brexit analogy illustrates that when a whole load of idiots ignore the sound advice from knowledgeable people, they end up in the sh*t.

The climate does gradually warm and cool, but that's completely different from the rapid changes over the last 150 years we're seeing. You must be blind to reality if you can't see that.

riffmongous · 29-07-2018 12:55am

XsApollo wrote: »

My own opinion is earths climate cycles over a long period of time.
Gradually warming and then gradually cooling.

Why on earth would you think that? What possible evidence is there and who discovered it? And why did those people suddenly stop having a clue?

Twenty Grand · 29-07-2018 12:57am

riffmongous wrote: »

Why on earth would you think that? What possible evidence is there and who discovered it? And why did those people suddenly stop having a clue?

Climate oscillations occur, but they're usually some historical basis. The climate change we see now is rapid global changes that coincide with human industrialisation.

riffmongous · 29-07-2018 1:01am

Twenty Grand wrote: »

Total bullsh*t and equating the 17th century church to modern scientists is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

It's one of the most stupid things I've ever read. And totally flip flopped of course, which I suspect is the political point. Notice now also how climate change is being associated with the liberal left, it's a handy way of turning people away from it without having to go anywhere near the science..

riffmongous · 29-07-2018 1:05am

Twenty Grand wrote: »

Climate oscillations occur, but they're usually some historical basis. The climate change we see now is rapid global changes that coincide with human industrialisation.

I know, you might need to re read the post in context

Sweetemotion · 29-07-2018 1:10am

riffmongous wrote: »

It's one of the most stupid things I've ever read. And totally flip flopped of course, which I suspect is the political point. Notice now also how climate change is being associated with the liberal left, it's a handy way of turning people away from it without having to go anywhere near the science..

Liberal left denies science when it comes to biology for some reason.

WinnyThePoo · 29-07-2018 1:17am

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Liberal left denies science when it comes to biology for some reason.

The threads not about liberal left

Your issue is with scientists.

jaxxx · 29-07-2018 1:23am

Some of these comments are worrying me. I really wish people would educate themselves about climate change before going in like a bull in a China shop thinking they knew everything when in fact they know Jack-$hit.

Climate change itself is a natural phenomenon. Over the course of the Earth's history there has been countless (well not quite countless but a lot of global climate shifts). What we are influencing however is what is referred to as 'enhanced greenhouse effect'. It was just over 20 years ago that CFCs were banned. CFCs harming and destroying the ozone, since the 1930s I think. But no, that has no effect on the climate whatsoever... destroying the ozone, resulting in increased exposure to dangerous UV rays, HOW COULD THAT POSSIBLY HAVE A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE PLANET?!

Then there's the emissions from cars, planes, boats, factories, and probably a million other things (slight exageration maybe), that has been polluting the planet for a long fekcing time!

[give me strength...]

XsApollo · 29-07-2018 1:23am

riffmongous wrote: »

Why on earth would you think that? What possible evidence is there and who discovered it? And why did those people suddenly stop having a clue?

That is evidence it’s fact, because it does.
Now theory’s are different, and scientists bandy then about as fact, becuase that’s what they know at the time, in a few hundred years the next expert will have debunked that theory and have their own until the next expert arrives.

Sweetemotion · 29-07-2018 1:31am

jaxxx wrote: »

Some of these comments are worrying me. I really wish people would educate themselves about climate change before going in like a bull in a China shop thinking they knew everything when in fact they know Jack-$hit.

Climate change itself is a natural phenomenon. Over the course of the Earth's history there has been countless (well not quite countless but a lot of global climate shifts). What we are influencing however is what is referred to as 'enhanced greenhouse effect'. It was just over 20 years ago that CFCs were banned. CFCs harming and destroying the ozone, since the 1930s I think. But no, that has no effect on the climate whatsoever... destroying the ozone, resulting in increased exposure to dangerous UV rays, HOW COULD THAT POSSIBLY HAVE A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE PLANET?!

Then there's the emissions from cars, planes, boats, factories, and probably a million other things (slight exageration maybe), that has been polluting the planet for a long fekcing time!

[give me strength...]

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.

Canis Lupus · 29-07-2018 2:19am

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump

Hector Bellend · 29-07-2018 2:36am

f*ck the environment

mickrock · 29-07-2018 3:02am

Check out this book:

The End Is Near: 50th Anniversary Edition.

I Corps · 29-07-2018 3:23am

mickrock wrote: »

Check out this book:

The End Is Near: 50th Anniversary Edition.

It probably will be in 50 years time.

What many do not understand is that climate change is progressively slow for us humans in which the effects would not be so immediate. But for earth, the current change is bloody fast. The rate of temperature rise is unprecedented in the planet's history.

Kermit.de.frog · 29-07-2018 4:14am

Anyone who thinks we can keep pumping the crap we do in to our atmosphere without consequences is deluded.

You can question global warming but the fact is we live in an enclosed system. That toxic crap you see coming out of all those Chinese factories for example goes in to our atmosphere and stays there. There is only so much space in our atmosphere before the impacts become very real.

This exhibits itself in a greenhouse effect. Heat comes in but can't get out.

This year we have seen the world's highest ever minimum temperature at night in Oman. 41.6c.

If people want an example of what happens to a planet with a runaway Greenhouse effect where heat can't escape - look at the planet Venus.

There is the natural change as well but it does us no good polluting the air we have to breath.

For people arguing we don't have a problem - you don't make a sh!it of your own house - why would you make a sh!t of your own atmosphere and eco system?

GreeBo · 29-07-2018 8:57am

Sweetemotion wrote: »

How it was arrived at.

It was arrived art in exactly the same way as grey anecdotal Europe is broken, Greece is dying and shrubs is great nonsense was.

You can't pick and choose your anecdotes if you are a scientist.

Wanderer78 · 29-07-2018 9:01am

Kermit.de.frog wrote:

You can question global warming but the fact is we live in an enclosed system. That toxic crap you see coming out of all those Chinese factories for example goes in to our atmosphere and stays there. There is only so much space in our atmosphere before the impacts become very real.

To be fair to the Chinese, we re pumping enough ****e into our eco system to, we re all at it

Sleeper12 · 29-07-2018 9:13am

Creative83 wrote:

I could provide with a temperature guideline over the past 2,000 years I think... but it wouldn't fit your narrative so I wont do it

You are one of the Healey Ray's from Kerry? Only god controls climote and everyone that votes for me can drinks drive

PopePalpatine · 29-07-2018 9:13am

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

For people arguing we don't have a problem - you don't make a sh!it of your own house - why would you make a sh!t of your own atmosphere and eco system?

To own the libs of course!

Pinch Flat · 29-07-2018 9:16am

Sorry folks a bit late to the thread. Very disappointed there hasn’t been a YouTube video from some conspiracy nut about climate change. Agenda 21, NWO, chemtrails, jet fuel and steel etc. That would have drawn me in.

Sleeper12 · 29-07-2018 9:19am

It's a special kind of evil where the person who starts the thread deletes his/her opening post

looksee · 29-07-2018 9:31am

With our recent heatwave... the "top scientists", best in the world apparently... are now predicting doom on a biblical level.

No, they have issued a quite cautious and thoughtful statement that simply asserts that the current heatwave was more than twice as likely to have been caused by global warming. This editorial https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/09/the-guardian-view-on-climate-change-a-global-heatwave from the Guardian is very measured in its opinion.

Even if you have doubts about climate change, there is no disputing what those who lived in industrialised England in the 1950s can remember; the smog which was a direct result of burning fossil fuels. The Clean Air Act was an early acceptance of the fact that humans can mess up their world, and it needs to be controlled.

It is all bull**** and speculation of course. Nobody has the balls in that community to come forward and actually say that there is no problem.

Possibly because there is, or most likely is, a problem.

Funny thing is that these guys would protest a Nuclear power plant in a heartbeat, apparently not smart enough to relise that nuclear energy is the way forward!!!

'these guys'? Have you any evidence or figures showing that the same people who protest nuclear power are also climate scientists? There will be a significant overlap I would think, but why would you want to promote investment in the cost and risk of nuclear when there is still a good bit of fossil fuel to burn? Especially while, whether caused by climate change or not, the events of recent years - the Japanese tsunami for example - rising sea levels, violent weather events - put nuclear power stations at risk of damage?

Annasopra · 29-07-2018 9:36am

Canis Lupus wrote: »

TBF you just read like a contrarian for the sake of it.

Hey man, I'm no sheep. Who are scientists to tell me me stuff. I'll believe what I want to believe.

Tinfoil hattery?

Sleeper12 · 29-07-2018 9:39am

Even if you have doubts about climate change, there is no disputing what those who lived in industrialised England in the 1950s can remember; the smog which was a direct result of burning fossil fuels. The Clean Air Act was an early acceptance of the fact that humans can mess up their world, and it needs to be controlled.

I totally agree with you

I remember the smog in Dublin in the 70s & 80s. I genuinely believed it to be lots of foggy days every year till they banned smoky fuel. I live right on the coast & can see the sea from my house between the rooftops of the houses behind us. We mightn't see fog more than once a year now

Annasopra · 29-07-2018 9:40am

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.

Who says?

Links?

dav3 · 29-07-2018 9:51am

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It's a special kind of evil where the person who starts the thread deletes his/her opening post

I think he makes a very good point.

Raging_Ninja · 29-07-2018 10:00am

XsApollo wrote: »

That is evidence it’s fact, because it does.
Now theory’s are different, and scientists bandy then about as fact, becuase that’s what they know at the time, in a few hundred years the next expert will have debunked that theory and have their own until the next expert arrives.

Theories are used to explain the evidence we have and have predictive properties. A theory isn't accepted until it can predict not only new phenomena that the old theory couldn't, but also every other phenomena that the old theory explained.

Usually theories get turned over because technology moves on and measurements which weren't possible in the past become possible. Shortfalls in Newtonian physics became apparent when they didn't explain the motion of some of the planets for instance. We wouldn't have geostationary satellites today had we not come up with the General Theory of Relativity which made a huge amount of at the time unverifiable predictions which have subsequently been found.

Raging_Ninja · 29-07-2018 10:06am

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.

CFCs affected the ozone layer due to a chemical reaction caused by halogen released by the CFC which catalyzed the breakdown of ozone. When CFC was banned, the ozone depletion stopped and the hole started recovering.

Emissions from cars don't affect the ozone layer since they don't emit CFCs. They emit carbon dioxide which instead traps heat.

Interestingly, a number of Chinese foam insulation manufacturers have started using CFC in their products, causing more of a buildup of CFC in the atmosphere (or rather a decrease in the CFC reduction in the atmosphere). https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/07/group-identifies-sources-of-rogue-ozone-depleting-pollution-in-china/

Annasopra · 29-07-2018 10:08am

dav3 wrote: »

I think he makes a very good point.

Maybe for a pre school creche

DickSwiveller Returns · 29-07-2018 10:12am

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.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 29-07-2018 10:14am

dav3 wrote: »

I think he makes a very good point.

The . was well argued.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 29-07-2018 10:19am

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

Franz Von Peppercorn · 29-07-2018 10:31am

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.

ancapailldorcha · 29-07-2018 10:34am

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.

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

Comments