1 minute ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

You got me. No scientists actually believe in climate change. You win. 

 

From Wikipedia 'Scientific consensus on climate change' Lot's of names, studies, and stuff in there. But your guy knows best. 

 

Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–98%) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change, and the remaining 2% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors. A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%.

 

Got to leave it there. 

So you can't name any credible scientists and the Wiki comment proves you have never researched the topic.

I'm really glad that this thread has descended into "yes it is" "no it isn't", because the earlier points about a dystopian future were depressing.
 

I guess that is what the autocrats and plutocrats and kleptocrats pay for. 

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming

So it's 1% not 97%.

 

 

3 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Well there you go ..a new charming comment from Britman Too.. you're ex must have done you wrong allright..

I know nothing about him, except that we have a common history with western women that we unfortunately trusted, and got taken to the proverbial cleaners for it.

To say they done us wrong would be the understatement of the century, IMO.

Personally, after being done over by my western woman, I rejected any idea that I could try again with one. Unfortunately I thought my Thai woman was different. Slap me.

5 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

You might have got him there, but black is white, isn't it?

Given the 97% claim was debunked 8 years ago maybe black is purple or 103% is 50%.

 

 

4 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

I'm really glad that this thread has descended into "yes it is" "no it isn't", because the earlier points about a dystopian future were depressing.
 

I guess that is what the autocrats and plutocrats and kleptocrats pay for. 

No it isn't.

4 minutes ago, ballpoint said:

No it isn't.

Is this for five minutes, or the full half hour?

7 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

I'm really glad that this thread has descended into "yes it is" "no it isn't", because the earlier points about a dystopian future were depressing.
 

I guess that is what the autocrats and plutocrats and kleptocrats pay for. 

I don't know where you live, but IMO where I do has already descended into some sort of dystopian state. It's just that most don't realise it yet, IMO.

I probably only noticed because I spent a lot of time outside the country, in Thailand.

I don't really think it matters whether you believe in global warming or not.

 

Governments do, and the oil companies do, and the electricity companies do.

 

Any one of them, I could take. Sparktrader's already seen off Donald Trump.  But all together, they're too much for me, even with Sparktrader's help, and I'm just going to go with the consensus.

 

SC

8 hours ago, ChrisKC said:

I am not part of the "dictionary police". You appeared not to know the meaning, though you knew, if you consulted - not swallowed a dictionary, you would have. But to save you the seemingly onerous task of looking it up yourself, I thought, without cynicism, to describe it briefly in an attempt to help!

Dashed decent of you, but to describe dystopian as a commonly used word is pushing it a bit. 

5 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

Is this for five minutes, or the full half hour?

I've already told you once.

2 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

I don't really think it matters whether you believe in global warming or not.

 

Governments do, and the oil companies do, and the electricity companies do.

 

Any one of them, I could take. Sparktrader's already seen off Donald Trump.  But all together, they're too much for me, even with Sparktrader's help, and I'm just going to go with the consensus.

 

SC

Oil companies dont. Power companies dont know. Govts want $ .

10 hours ago, nobodysfriend said:

If the future looks dystopian , and it certainly does , it is well deserved .

Human nature cannot change , it seems . It is still the same old and primitive instincts that dominate ( nearly ) everyone's thinking . That is what brought all the trouble the world is in now .

It is time to take an evolutionary step foreward for our species , but that won't happen , as mankind cannot overcome their mental limitations . So , Dystopia knocking on the door , and no way to go back ...

At 65 , I found a place where i like to live , even if it changes to become more bad every year . I keep people as far away as possible , I am happy with my only true friends ( my dogs ) , and my wife .

I never wanted kids , and I was right about this .

I try to eat good food only , ( don't like meat anymore ) , have a few good drinks and my healthy Ganja tea ( nearly ) every evening ...

I watch in TV news what is going on elsewhere in the world , and I am happy that I am so old already ... would like to die of an heart attack one day , that would mean that I would not have to witness my own degradation . I witness the degradation of the once beautiful world ( Just think how nature was beautiful just 150 yrs ago ) ,

All I can think about this is how impossible it is for mankind to solve the problems they created themselves .

Not bound for further evolution , but for extinction it seems ...

Proof of the ultimate stupidity and the impossibility to work all together to reach one solution in an emergency situation .

 

thanks for writing all that .   saves me the time to write,  and also people won't say " man Rumak, what a downer"  .       Allow me to paraphrase, if you will:  life sucks, and then you die.

haha  just kidding guys.   it only sucks sometimes.   "Honey, bring me those lemons" .....

yep,  time for some lemonade      oh wth   make that a johnny walker

The consensus is 99% believe mostly nature or dont know.

 

Truth is nobody cant put a number on nature vs manmade. Climate science has not evolved.

6 hours ago, connda said:

An Orwellian future in places like Thailand and other third-world countries;
A Huxleyian 'Brave New World' future in the collapsing West;
A CCP future for Eurasia and those who climb aboard the One Belt-One Road bullet-train to Eurasia economic integration.
Ironically, the latter may be the least oppressive for the average citizen.

 

Look outside.    Follow me !!   Set us FREE !                 

 

Hey, where is everyone ????????

On the bright side, burning fossil fuels might not result in global warming and the extinction of the human race.  On the other hand, there is an argument that it might.  

To be on the safe side, we should burn as much as we can get away with now, and leave our children to find out if there really is a problem.

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, StreetCowboy said:

On the bright side, burning fossil fuels might not result in global warming and the extinction of the human race.  On the other hand, there is an argument that it might.  

To be on the safe side, we should burn as much as we can get away with now, and leave our children to find out if there really is a problem.

 

 

 

 

Except there isn't. Bangkok has cooler temps than Siem Reap due to pollution. The pollition blocks the heat. And after 150 years we dont need to wait 20 years to know the impact. Too much pollution aint good but it isnt causing dangerous warming. 

8 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Except there isn't. Bangkok has cooler temps than Siem Reap due to pollution. The pollition blocks the heat. And after 150 years we dont need to wait 20 years to know the impact. Too much pollution aint good but it isnt causing dangerous warming. 

That's not my experience, but you believe what you want.

1 minute ago, StreetCowboy said:

That's not my experience, but you believe what you want.

Read the science

Scientists have long known that these aerosols serve to block incoming solar radiation and temporarily cool the planet, but now an international team of scientists has quantified that cooling effect, saying the earth would be 0.5 to 1.1 degree C (0.9 to 2 degrees F) warmer if that pollution were to suddenly disappear.

“What do you find yourself looking forward to... ??”

My July 18th flight out of here. 

1 hour ago, Sparktrader said:

Except there isn't. Bangkok has cooler temps than Siem Reap due to pollution. The pollition blocks the heat. And after 150 years we dont need to wait 20 years to know the impact. Too much pollution aint good but it isnt causing dangerous warming. 

So, pollution is good? How profound…

1 minute ago, DBath said:

So, pollution is good? How profound…

Who says it's good? You? How profound.

6 hours ago, BritManToo said:

More likely a primitive Muslim Caliphate.

Although to be honest, I don't have much of a problem with women restricted to the home, refused education, and being stoned to death for adultery.

 

Not something I would particularly like to see, but it would be interesting watching the weaselly do-gooders explain how brown people are all innocent victims by default, Western culture is inferior to all others, and this is all the White man's fault, as they get stuffed into Burkas and told they cannot leave the house.

1 hour ago, Sparktrader said:

Who says it's good? You? How profound.

No, you did…

 

”Bangkok has cooler temps than Siem Reap due to pollution. The pollition blocks the heat….Too much pollution aint good but it isnt causing dangerous warming.”

 

Is that your post? Are you not able to comprehend your own prose? 

2 hours ago, Sparktrader said:

Read the science

Some science is better left unread…

6 hours ago, DBath said:

No, you did…

 

”Bangkok has cooler temps than Siem Reap due to pollution. The pollition blocks the heat….Too much pollution aint good but it isnt causing dangerous warming.”

 

Is that your post? Are you not able to comprehend your own prose? 

Aint good means not good.

 

Are you not able to comprehend?

2 hours ago, Sparktrader said:

Aint good means not good.

 

Are you not able to comprehend?

“Ain’t” ain’t a word…besides, you contradicted yourself by saying, “Too much pollution ain’t good…”. So, I guess that means a little pollution is good? Because it cools the earth? How much is too much?
 

Sorry, but you flip-flopped and I also find your kind of logic extremely whacky. 

On 7/2/2021 at 4:52 PM, 1FinickyOne said:

What do you find yourself looking forward to... ??