4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So please explain where it says that in 5 years time from 2018 the world will have collapsed.

Well, who knows, someone may have said such a thing. The real issue is what does the science say?

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So please explain where it says that in 5 years time from 2018 the world will have collapsed.

It doesn't say the world will have collapsed. It says that humans will be wiped out, and no where did I say the world would collapse.

The planet will be just fine if all humans were wiped out though.

 

 

 

 

22 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And a massive economic downturn occurred since Greta was 15 years old.

More to do with employing people for their diversity than their ability IMHO.

 

As for Climate change ..... The 3rd intellectual pillar of wokeism,

"Environmentalism based on the notion that it is desirable and possible to arrest climate change."
I much preferred the pre-woke environmentalism, save the whale, trees, remove garbage from the seas and land ........ forgotten now, all that matters is Co2.

15 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It doesn't say the world will have collapsed. It says that humans will be wiped out, and no where did I say the world would collapse.

The planet will be just fine if all humans were wiped out though.

 

 

 

 

Yes Greta Thunberg did post that. Not only isn't she a scientist but she didn't accurately represent what that scientist said.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/greta-thunberg-deleted-2018-tweet-on-humanity/

What's more, even her comment taken as read does not claim that humanity will be wiped out in five years. You really should learn to read more carefully.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It doesn't say the world will have collapsed. It says that humans will be wiped out, and no where did I say the world would collapse.

The planet will be just fine if all humans were wiped out though.

 

 

 

 

So nowhere does it say humanity will be wiped out in 5 years. And since I know you can understand English you're either trolling or don't want to understand.

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

What has any of this nonsense got to do with science?

Over 99.9 percent of all climatological papers that reference climate change in some way support that human caused climate change is a real thing.

Yes, in some way. But were did you get this 99.9% from? Sounds like a disinfectant ad. Link please?

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

Well, who knows, someone may have said such a thing. The real issue is what does the science say?

I thought you knew all about that already!

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

Thank you for your detailed and reasoned reply to my comment. Here's a small editing suggestion. Your comment was a bit prolix. You could have dropped the 'No".

Required to doubly rebut your inane analogy. Now you can go look up your next word of the day. Make it a good one!

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and I thought you had more common sense.

No ya didn't!

38 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Yes, in some way. But were did you get this 99.9% from? Sounds like a disinfectant ad. Link please?

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change

32 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Required to doubly rebut your inane analogy. Now you can go look up your next word of the day. Make it a good one!

I guess "No, it's not" technically qualifies a rebuttal. But you clearly don't understand what inane means. Since your rebuttal offers no reasoning or factual content, it's lacking significance. And "lacking significance" is a definition of "inane."

42 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I thought you knew all about that already!

I do. You've made it clear you don't.

39 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I guess "No, it's not" technically qualifies a rebuttal. But you clearly don't understand what inane means. Since your rebuttal offers no reasoning or factual content, it's lacking significance. And "lacking significance" is a definition of "inane."

I'll keep you at inane status, thanks. 

41 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I do. You've made it clear you don't.

You do? So you are a climate scientist?

On 3/18/2023 at 10:31 AM, placeholder said:

Only one part of climate change?

This is like saying the issue of why my car won't go has nothing to do with whether or not there's petrol in the tank. I

Anyone who credits Credo's first post here is denying major events of earth (climate) history - some of them not so long ago - particularly these lines " Climate Change is not caused by natural events. It's not associated with any natural event, like the sun cycle or volcanic eruptions."  But the climate has been changed by natural events before and far more significantly than it is changing now.

 

I think Credo actually means Milankovitch cycles, which refer to the tilt of the earth (nothing to do with the sun) and which have a direct correlation with the arrival of past (and future) ice ages. There is plenty of evidence to show cooling events after large volcanic eruptions, even quite recently (e.g. Pinatubo). 

 

I am not a climate change denier, actually the opposite. I acknowledge the phenomenon of global temperature rise since 1850 industrial revolution and I support reduction of emissions in general. I also support reforestation even more. But I don't agree that all this science is settled, far from it.

32 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

 

32 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Anyone who credits Credo's first post here is denying major events of earth (climate) history - some of them not so long ago - particularly these lines " Climate Change is not caused by natural events. It's not associated with any natural event, like the sun cycle or volcanic eruptions."  But the climate has been changed by natural events before and far more significantly than it is changing now.

 

I think Credo actually means Milankovitch cycles, which refer to the tilt of the earth (nothing to do with the sun) and which have a direct correlation with the arrival of past (and future) ice ages. There is plenty of evidence to show cooling events after large volcanic eruptions, even quite recently (e.g. Pinatubo). 

 

I am not a climate change denier, actually the opposite. I acknowledge the phenomenon of global temperature rise since 1850 industrial revolution and I support reduction of emissions in general. I also support reforestation even more. But I don't agree that all this science is settled, far from it.

Obvious attempt at deflection. This isn't about what Credo says but what virtually all climate scientists subscribe to. . You're the one who challenged me about that 99.9% figure, and when I prove that it's got nothing to do with a "disinfectant ad", and I provide the link you ask for, you just continue to deflect anyway. You've got nothing.

Off topic troll post removed

Unsurprising to see the usual right wings trolls getting owned on this thread.  Is there a thread where they don't make idiots of themselves running presently anyone could direct me to?

Climate deniers, vaccine deniers, evolution deniers , Brexiteers and flat earthers..... they arent even part of a real discussion

unfortunately it remains for the rest of us to fix the damage they do

19 hours ago, stevenl said:

So nowhere does it say humanity will be wiped out in 5 years. And since I know you can understand English you're either trolling or don't want to understand.

You are either baiting me or being overly pedantic.

 

Anyway, we didn't stop using fossil fuels so that must mean according to the "top scientist" we are all doomed now, so why bother doing anything about it?

IMO for sure we ain't going to stop using fossil fuels till the crude runs out, and then we'll liquefy coal.

 

IMO climate change isn't going to wipe us out , but our pollution, environmental destruction and overpopulation will.

 

 

11 hours ago, Slip said:

Unsurprising to see the usual right wings trolls getting owned on this thread.  Is there a thread where they don't make idiots of themselves running presently anyone could direct me to?

555555555555555

On 3/17/2023 at 8:25 PM, onthedarkside said:

conservatives in the state want schools to ascribe the changes to "natural" fluctuations.

 

A theory that has definitively been disproved...in fact it is now a cornerstone of MMCC theory.

Let's put it along with biblical theories of creation, fake moon landings, vaccine deniers, anti-abortionists, racists, Brexiteers and flat earthers.

Is there something in these people's DNA that has mutated and makes them incapable of understanding a rudimentary proposition?

 

50 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You are either baiting me or being overly pedantic.

 

Anyway, we didn't stop using fossil fuels so that must mean according to the "top scientist" we are all doomed now, so why bother doing anything about it?

IMO for sure we ain't going to stop using fossil fuels till the crude runs out, and then we'll liquefy coal.

 

IMO climate change isn't going to wipe us out , but our pollution, environmental destruction and overpopulation will.

 

 

It would appear you don't understand the stement.

Try to re-read it....and then once you understand you can comment if this is a likely scenario.

Come back if you need a comprehension tip.

2 minutes ago, kwilco said:

A theory that has definitively been disproved...in fact it is now a cornerstone of MMCC theory.

Let's put it along with biblical theories of creation, fake moon landings, vaccine deniers, anti-abortionists, racists, Brexiteers and flat earthers.

Is there something in these people's DNA that has mutated and makes them incapable of understanding a rudimentary proposition?

 

If it's been definitively disproved you need to provide a link to a reputable source, or it's not been definitively disproved.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You are either baiting me or being overly pedantic.

 

Anyway, we didn't stop using fossil fuels so that must mean according to the "top scientist" we are all doomed now, so why bother doing anything about it?

IMO for sure we ain't going to stop using fossil fuels till the crude runs out, and then we'll liquefy coal.

 

IMO climate change isn't going to wipe us out , but our pollution, environmental destruction and overpopulation will.

 

 

So in another 3 months, the world can forget about trying to stop climate change 'cos we're all going to die anyway. Good to hear, we can live our lives without further worries.

 

Obviously the Climate Alarmists will just change the end date when it doesn't happen. (like they always do when their bonkers predictions fail)

A baiting post has been removed

20 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

So in another 3 months, the world can forget about trying to stop climate change 'cos we're all going to die anyway. Good to hear, we can live our lives without further worries.

 

Obviously the Climate Alarmists will just change the end date when it doesn't happen. (like they always do when their bonkers predictions fail)

Bonkers predictions? ????

The current climate change is following the forecasts made during the early 2000's

 

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

 

 

 

18 hours ago, nauseus said:

You do? So you are a climate scientist?

So, if some fundamentalist type claims that the earth was created 6000 or so years ago, because I'm not a geologist, I can't disprove that claim by citing  what geologists say is the age of the earth? If that same Bible thumper claims that there is no such thing as evolution, that God created all species as they are, because I'm not a paleontologist or an evolutionary biologist, I can't disprove their claim by citing what paleontologists and evolutionary biologists say? 

Once again, you've come up with another ridiculous objection.

Flame post and response removed.

 

Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source.

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

So, if some fundamentalist type claims that the earth was created 6000 or so years ago, because I'm not a geologist, I can't disprove that claim by citing  what geologists say is the age of the earth? If that same Bible thumper claims that there is no such thing as evolution, that God created all species as they are, because I'm not a paleontologist or an evolutionary biologist, I can't disprove their claim by citing what paleontologists and evolutionary biologists say? 

Once again, you've come up with another ridiculous objection.

I entirely agree with you, but unfortunately there are a lot of nut jobs in the US (and around the world) who believe in the sort of rubbish about the creation of earth 6000 years ago and that God created everything, and so on, but just how far will they go??

 

Climate change is just one of another example which they have hooked onto and it really perturbs me somewhat to think that there are these mindless individuals who think that way, and in some cases can change fact into fiction because they have the power to do so – – what on earth is the world coming to?