8 minutes ago, kwilco said:

What is so disconcerting is that those who deny man mare climate change seem unaware of their profound ignorance on the matter and their total inability to sort the wheat from the chaff and yet still have the arrogance to think they have the intellect to counter the arguments.

They simply have no idea how wide of the mark they are.

As the philosopher Bertrand Russell noted: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."

Just now, RickBradford said:

As the philosopher Bertrand Russell noted: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."

And you, Mr Bradford, seem so certain of yourself.

32 minutes ago, kwilco said:

And you, Mr Bradford, seem so certain of yourself.

Not really.

 

Certainly not enough to accuse all those people who disagree with me as having "profound ignorance" or "arrogance" or "total inability".

 

You'll have to look closer to home for that.

Edited June 16, 20188 yr by RickBradford

56 minutes ago, kwilco said:

What is so disconcerting is that those who deny man mare climate change seem unaware of their profound ignorance on the matter and their total inability to sort the wheat from the chaff and yet still have the arrogance to think they have the intellect to counter the arguments.

They simply have no idea how wide of the mark they are.

I think some of them are at least half aware of their ignorance. Which is why they refuse to cite evidence to back their case.

13 hours ago, bristolboy said:

It's only relevant if

a)you believe that the melting ice scientists are referring to is only floating sea ice or sea ice resting on the ocean floor with 1/10 or less of its mass above water

b) that sea ice is not slowing the progressive movement of glaciers into the sea

c)and that glacial ice is not included in the ice they are referring to.

 

It's just bizarre that someone would think that they have caught scientists out in a error as elementary as this.

 

So glad I wasn't alone in noticing the poor standard of reporting. The lack of relevant information regarding the category of ice referenced in the calculation of 'rising sea levels' is just shoddy.

 

Such publications, quoting ill-defined facts reduce the message to mere; gossip or propaganda. I suspect it was written to offset reporting of increased Antarctic ice levels last year. using big numbers as a sound bite for folks to remember. Hardly a document to be taken seriously.

It was probably written by the Antarctic Climate Scientist who left their spare phone at home. Then DHL had to fly a replacement half way round the world to cover their incompetence. 

 

The author(s) caught themselves out. by being  sloppy 

 

Sea ice should mostly be discounted from the equation. As Archimedes stated over 2,000 years ago. Bet he never forgot his phone!

 

Jerry

 

10 hours ago, bristolboy said:

I think some of them are at least half aware of their ignorance. Which is why they refuse to cite evidence to back their case.

Oh, the arrogance, the condescension, the unearned tone of moral superiority.

 

No wonder the climate alarmist movement is dying an unlamented death.

34 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Oh, the arrogance, the condescension, the unearned tone of moral superiority.

 

No wonder the climate alarmist movement is dying an unlamented death.

Right. Because this isn't arrogant and condescending

 

"If you think you have credible evidence that the temperature adjustment scandal is without foundation, fine, but quoting SkS Kidz as the source for that belief merely invites the horse laugh."

 

You criticize my evidence on no data-based  grounds  but simply offer fact-free ridicule, And on top of which you refuse to provide any evidence if your own.

Forget attacking each other for a bit and lets see what information is correct or not and why.

Our opinions dont matter in the end  but the data that has been collected over the years and everything I see is pointing to man made climate change as the main reason.

 

Is ice melting, are oceans rising, is Co2 ppm going up, is global temperature rises occuring, and what are the immediate and foreseeable consequences.

 

Yes it is a complex system and yes there are uncertainties in predicting the future but we have used this method time and again to help us make the future better and not worse.  At this point in human civilisation I think we are reaching the limits of our biosphere and our effects are observable and recorded.

 

Plastics waste, fisheries collapse,  etc. these are measurable outcomes of civilisation and industrialisation.

 

Are there any Chinese scientists or Indian ones saying there is no such thing as climate change and no need to change anything?  People in Asia are seeing the effects in rain patterns droughts and floods.

As above some Chinese scientist is working on salt tolerant rice.  This is the sort of direction we need to be going in.

 

How many naysayers have any evidence to refute the graphs Nasa  has online?

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/

 

etc mentioned above...

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, gregk0543 said:

Is ice melting, are oceans rising, is Co2 ppm going up, is global temperature rises occuring, and what are the immediate and foreseeable consequences.

But are we responsible?, Is it significant?, and can we change anything even if we wanted?

 

Do I care if sea level rises 2cm every 10 years? Not really.

Does it matter if global temperature rises 2c in the next 100 years?, Can't see a problem myself.

What are the immediate consequences? Scaremongers using it to make money & manipulate fools IMHO.

 

10 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

But are we responsible?, Is it significant?, and can we change anything even if we wanted?

 

Do I care if sea level rises 2cm every 10 years? Not really.

Does it matter if global temperature rises 2c in the next 100 years?, Can't see a problem myself.

What are the immediate consequences? Scaremongers using it to make money & manipulate fools IMHO.

 

I am so relieved. Now that I know that you don't care, why should the rest of us worry. Maybe you should adopt this as your motto 

"Global Warming. It's All About Me."

On ‎6‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 9:17 AM, rudi49jr said:

Ok, I will take you up on that. Many people seem to have absolutely no idea what they're talking about when it comes to climate change. Like I said, 99% of climate researchers are 99% sure that we are destroying the planet that we live on. I'm no expert on that, but it seems to me that it's at least somewhat ignorant to dismiss what these people have to say. See where I'm going with that?

"...99% of climate researchers are 99% sure that we are destroying the planet that we live on"

 

Really?  Where did you get that gem from?

On ‎6‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 12:31 PM, owl sees all said:

A fooball pitch covered in ice to a depth of 1000 metres would weigh about 10 million tonnes. Only want a few of those to get a trillion tonnes.

 

Only a few?  A million to be precise.

4 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

Only a few?  A million to be precise.

I believe he's referring to what Americans call socer. Apparently there is a wide range of sizes that these are allowed to be. So it's not clearcut how many pitches that would be.

14 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

"...99% of climate researchers are 99% sure that we are destroying the planet that we live on"

 

Really?  Where did you get that gem from?

You're right. He's massively exaggerating. It's only 97%.

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

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I believe he's referring to what Americans call socer. Apparently there is a wide range of sizes that these are allowed to be. So it's not clearcut how many pitches that would be.

Yes, it is clear.   He was talking about the weight of the water.

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You're right. He's massively exaggerating. It's only 97%.

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

That bogus claim was debunked years ago.

36 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Scaremongers using it to make money & manipulate fools IMHO.

 

Yep the new version of Y2K. If a bunch of people can be fooled into spending billions on something that might have happened but never did well... Let's start another nebulous scheme. 

 

40,000 years ago when Neanderthals still existed the oceans were 80m lower. Maybe we are still coming out of the last ice age? OK we may have hastened it a bit but it was going to happen with or without humans. 

2 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

 

Yep the new version of Y2K. If a bunch of people can be fooled into spending billions on something that might have happened but never did well... Let's start another nebulous scheme. 

 

40,000 years ago when Neanderthals still existed the oceans were 80m lower. Maybe we are still coming out of the last ice age? OK we may have hastened it a bit but it was going to happen with or without humans. 

How important is advancing what would normally take thousands of years into a hundred? According to you, not very.

5 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

That bogus claim was debunked years ago.

Well, I was going to doubt your claim, but then I thought about it and realized that it was you who claimed it. An anonymours poster on thaivisa.com. So I stand corrected. My standards have been shown to be insufficiently rigorous. 

11 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

Yes, it is clear.   He was talking about the weight of the water.

Thanks for the math enlightenment.

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Well, I was going to doubt your claim, but then I thought about it and realized that it was you who claimed it. An anonymours poster on thaivisa.com. So I stand corrected. My standards have been shown to be insufficiently rigorous. 

Research it, you'll find many debates on the subject of that ridiculous "97% of scientists" claim, there's many debates about it posted on YouTube.   It was garbage and it has been debunked by many different people who actually know what they are talking about.

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Well, I was going to doubt your claim, but then I thought about it and realized that it was you who claimed it. An anonymours poster on thaivisa.com. So I stand corrected. My standards have been shown to be insufficiently rigorous. 

Indeed, they have.

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Thanks for the math enlightenment.

No problem, glad you appreciated it.

3 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

Research it, you'll find many debates on the subject of that ridiculous "97% of scientists" claim, there's many debates about it posted on YouTube.   It was garbage and it has been debunked by many different people who actually know what they are talking about.

Yes, the scientific debate as can be seen on YouTube.

 

Sorry mate, you're utterly and totally wrong.

31 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

How important is advancing what would normally take thousands of years into a hundred? According to you, not very.

 

 

We will spend billions again only to have it happen again.  "97% of scientists couldn't get a grant without mentioning the nebulous scheme in their grant.

 

But we or nature have started underground coal fires that pollute quite a lot but no real money to be made or solution for those?  Volcanoes are good because they counteract the CO2.  Building giant cities or heat sinks as they should be called. Cutting down all the tree cover etc. so the sun can heat up the earth. 

So we move the deck chairs a bit further up the beach? 

 

Oh but wait. If we all drive electric cars that will solve it? Nonsense. More money making opportunities?  

 

We need a giant plague to kill of a few billion humans and we , if lucky, can go back to pre-industrial revolution life. Problem solved. Except for the underground coal fires.

 

I do my bit but billions of other do not. 

 

Anyway Climate change is old hat. We've moved onto the new money maker? Plastic packaging. 

 

Edited June 18, 20188 yr by VocalNeal

On 6/14/2018 at 9:17 AM, rudi49jr said:

Ok, I will take you up on that. Many people seem to have absolutely no idea what they're talking about when it comes to climate change. Like I said, 99% of climate researchers are 99% sure that we are destroying the planet that we live on. I'm no expert on that, but it seems to me that it's at least somewhat ignorant to dismiss what these people have to say. See where I'm going with that?

no, serious researchers will tell you this is bs from start to finish

 

 

Actually 'Just Wierd' and 'bristolboy' I was referring to the mass of water that could accumulate if it was piled onto a football pitch (say Dagenham and Redbridge's ground) until it topped over (top heavy). If it was - say 1000m high - then its volume would be 100 x 100 x 1000 m3. And would weigh 10 million tonnes. If someone wanted to know the weight in Kg then it would be multiplied by a factor of 1000 (10 billion Kgs).

 

I can't speak of just any old ground as the measurements could be different. I have noticed the all the world cup games are played on pitches that are 120 yards long (about 113 metres).

 

People can visualise football pitches rather than just huge figures.

 

So you were both bang on the money.

 

But an interesting post about being sure just arose. How can someone be 99% sure? Surely you are either sure or you are not! I think it means that the probability is 99%.

 

 

Edited June 18, 20188 yr by owl sees all

53 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

Yep the new version of Y2K. If a bunch of people can be fooled into spending billions on something that might have happened but never did well... Let's start another nebulous scheme. 

 

40,000 years ago when Neanderthals still existed the oceans were 80m lower. Maybe we are still coming out of the last ice age? OK we may have hastened it a bit but it was going to happen with or without humans. 

Do you recall about 40 or so years ago the 'scientists' were saying we were at the beginning of another 'ice age' cycle?  I can remember a lot of stuff on English TV about it.

 

All died a death; but a reckon a lot of research money was handed out over it.

1 minute ago, owl sees all said:

Do you recall about 40 or so years ago the 'scientists' were saying we were at the beginning of another 'ice age' cycle?  I can remember a lot of stuff on English TV about it.

 

All died a death; but a reckon a lot of research money was handed out over it.

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. At the time, some papers in the scientific literature did explore this hypothesis, but a larger number of papers were published on the topic of global warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. The global cooling hypothesis nonetheless gained temporary popularity due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the debate in the scientific literature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

paris accord is not binding .

climate change is not man made, no scientific proof exists.

climate change is the natural cause of history.

 

wbr

roobaa01