24 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What you don't seem to get is that it's not just about change in climate, but the rate of change. The average global temperature is rising faster than it has been in at least the last 125000 years. So glaciers are melting at an increasingly rapid pace. It's the rate of change that counts.

If one bank offers you interest at 1 percent and another at 10 percent, then on the basis of that alone, would you claim it doesn't matter since both interest rates are positive?

So then, it is part of a natural cycle. Thanks.

3 minutes ago, Issanman said:

So then, it is part of a natural cycle. Thanks.

False, It is not natural for warming to be happening so rapidly. Unless you think humans pumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is natural and part of some natural inevitable cycle. 

34 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

It's clearly stated in the OP.

Any organisation of person spouting 'misinformation' is talking about censorship and tyranny.

It's like the title 'deniers', when someone calls anyone a denier, they are trying to silence you.

I guess the terms climate fanatic and tree-hugger fall into that category too.

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I guess the terms climate fanatic and tree-hugger fall into that category too.

"Alarmist" too.

44 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

It's like the title 'deniers', when someone calls anyone a denier, they are trying to silence you.

"Title"? Do you mean of this thread? It says "sceptics", that means people who are sceptical about climate change. And no one is being silenced. Not you, and not the increased number of sceptics on Twitter.

 

It is amazing to me how often people claim they are being silenced, often while making this claim on the largest social media platforms.

 

I think people who express opinions, and are challenged, get all defensive and claim any criticism is an attempt to silence them.

 

 

2 hours ago, papa al said:

Mayday, mayday:

CO2 in the atmosphere has 

increased by 100ppm

 =    1% of 1%.

OMG.

IIRC, you were the guy who attempted to establish a whole new field of ester chemistry in the field of lubricants.

 

An increase of 100 ppm in CO2 level since the Industrial Revolution is an increase of 25%. You are flunking basic math as well.

 

Come back to me when you have studied and understand the laws of thermodynamics, and how the first and second laws determine global warming and climate change. Then tell me how albedo and clathrates have the potential for a Schiller event. I may be able to wait for a year or so.

 

Already, I can see this thread will be a fertile field for posts of abject ignorance, and conspiracy theories.

27 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I guess the terms climate fanatic and tree-hugger fall into that category too.

Would say the opposite,

Climate fanatics want to destroy our civilisation.

Tree huggers want to clear up pollution an save trees an forests from being cut own.

 

I'd like to see pollution cleaned up, plastic waste removed from the land, rivers and sea..

17 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Would say the opposite,

Climate fanatics want to destroy our civilisation.

Tree huggers want to clear up pollution an save trees an forests from being cut own.

 

I'd like to see pollution cleaned up, plastic waste removed from the land, rivers and sea..

When denialists post their claim here, I counter with facts that can be backed up by science.

Whereas, when denialists post their refutations here, they go with claiming motives. The convenient thing about that is that there's no factual way to counter  claims based on mind reading.

7 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Would say the opposite,

Climate fanatics want to destroy our civilisation.

Tree huggers want to clear up pollution an save trees an forests from being cut own.

 

I'd like to see pollution cleaned up, plastic waste removed from the land, rivers and sea..

Science will help in that respect, I really doubt Facebook and Twitter will.

Facebook is actually a criminal organization, it sells data of its users to scammers and foreign governments.

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

How did Greta get into this?

 

Oh, you obsessed again.

You can literally control the whole base MAGA movement with a few dog whistles and they are so obvious I won't even bother listing them.

It's pathetic.

4 hours ago, papa al said:

Mayday, mayday:

CO2 in the atmosphere has 

increased by 100ppm

 =    1% of 1%.

OMG.

 

4 hours ago, papa al said:

Overall, H2O has far more

atmospheric 'greenhouse effect'

than. CO2.

5 or 10 x more.

 

(It's all theatre folks.)

Mayday, mayday:  No sources given.

 

Agreed; it's all science denial theater.

3 hours ago, Issanman said:

About fifteen thousand years ago, most of North American and Europe were covered by a large sheet of ice.

 

I am wondering what the cavemen were doing back then to cause all of that ice to melt. Or maybe it could possibly be part of a natural cycle?

 

Perhaps an informed AN poster could explain.

Just wondering.

Going from 60 mph/100 Km per hour in ten seconds is a controlled stop.  The same change in a fraction of a second is a crash, frequently fatal.

 

The rate at which change happens matters.  The climate is currently changing faster than the environment can adapt.  That's an environmental crash.

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Yes, Twitter accounts that are sceptical of the conspiracy theories about man made climate change that Thunberg has been pivotal in pushing for the past few years. 

 

If you cannot see why she is relevant to the thread then I cannot help you. 

The only conspiracies occurring are the fossil fuel industry's rear guard action against alternative sources of energy, and the ignoramuses who push the "natural cycle" and "plant food" BS on social media.

 

Global warming and climate change are scientific facts, based on evidence and observation. The vast majority of scientists accept these two phenomena as an inevitable consequence of human activity.

 

At best, South Korea has the highest proportion of scientists on the planet. 1.5%, The world average is more like 0.5%, with an even small proportion trained in the critical skills, such as thermodynamics, meteorology, climatology, and oceanology.

 

Said scientists are drowned out on social media by conspiracy theorist morons who would not know entropy if it bit them on the bum. Shooting the messenger takes much less effort.

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

And the fact that 99.99% of climatological research supports Anthropogenic Climate Change is what counts.

Do you have a link to prove that fact re. the 99.99%?

 

I'm sure I don't need to remind you about forum rules regarding the presenting of "facts" without links to back them up.

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Do you have a link to prove that fact re. the 99.99%?

 

I'm sure I don't need to remind you about forum rules regarding the presenting of "facts" without links to back them up.

So if he provides a link, would you change your mind? 

10 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Do you have a link to prove that fact re. the 99.99%?

It's not a fact, it's a statistic. And anybody with any basic deduction capabilities is able to reason that when someone says "99.9%" it is to paraphrase the much longer winded statement that "There is no statistically significant amount of evidence  to the contrary".

 

Calling out somebody for using well-known terminology, and going on to talk about breaking forum rules as a consequence doesn't make one look clever.

2 minutes ago, JayClay said:

It's not a fact, it's a statistic.

It was presented as a fact.

 

So in accordance with forum rules, I would like a link to back up the fact as it was presented to be.

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

It was presented as a fact.

Yea I didn't think my intervention would help you understand the nuances of context.

 

I tried my best. Continue as you were.

11 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Do you have a link to prove that fact re. the 99.99%?

 

I'm sure I don't need to remind you about forum rules regarding the presenting of "facts" without links to back them up.

Thank you for asking me. Actually I did get it wrong. It's only 99.9%

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

 

 

8 minutes ago, candide said:

So if he provides a link, would you change your mind? 

Depends what the link contains. If it's another opinion piece from The Guardian then probably not.

 

If it's really shows that 99.99% of scientific research supports it, then Yes.

 

So let's see it.

1 minute ago, JayClay said:

Yea I didn't think my intervention would help you understand the nuances of context.

 

I tried my best. Continue as you were.

Nuances of context ????.

 

What nuance of context did I miss in the sentence below? It's a very simple statement.

 

Show me the link that 99.99% of climatological research support anthropogenic climate change.

 

99.99%.

 

Look forward to it.

6 hours ago, BritManToo said:

The UN want to control what we say and what we think.

If I want to believe something that's not true, what right does anyone have to stop me.

The biggest misinformation on the planet would be religion, and people are prepared to kill and die over that, shouldn't they try to stop religion first?

 

If I want to claim climate change isn't real, the earth is flat, the USA never landed on the moon ....... what harm does it do anyone. It's not as if my opinion affects anyone in any way positive or negative.

If one engages with Twitter with the foreknowledge that it is basically a cesspool of lies, misinformation, and Neanderthals letting off steam, then I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, a large percentage of people say that they get their *hard news* from Twitter, Facebook, and the like. Then, based on their confused perception of reality, they vote into office legislators who are in the pockets of the fossil fuels industry.

 

It’s not Twitter’s job to educate the general public. At the same time, however, Twitter should be aware of the influence it has over society, and act accordingly. Free speech has its limits.

Musk removed the manhole cover from the sewer.

12 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

What nuance of context did I miss in the sentence below

I've already explained. The fact is 99.99% of people can grasp it.

 

Possibly more, in fact; you're the first person I've ever come across who doesn't get it.

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The article reported on piece of research.  And, not surprisingly, you didn't actually provide a link to the source of that characterization

The "Alliance for Science" created the algorithm that produced the results. It's in your link.

 

 

They are funded by Gates. 

 

It's a PR piece for Gate's organization. It may as well have been funded by Greta herself. The fact that papers don't contain keywords like solar, cosmic rays etc. does not mean those papers are backing their theory. Although, by using such an algorithm that is how they reached their conclusion. 

 

Facts? Hardly... More like an algorithm created by Gates organization to produce results that backs up Gates opinion. 

 

"Oh, the paper doesn't contain the word solar so it must be agreeing with us". Laughable. ????

 

 

A text graphic with no supplied link has been reported and removed

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

The "Alliance for Science" created the algorithm that produced the results. It's in your link.

 

 

They are funded by Gates. 

 

It's a PR piece for Gate's organization. It may as well have been funded by Greta herself. The fact that papers don't contain keywords like solar, cosmic rays etc. does not mean those papers are backing their theory. Although, by using such an algorithm that is how they reached their conclusion. 

 

Facts? Hardly... More like an algorithm created by Gates organization to produce results that backs up Gates opinion. 

 

"Oh, the paper doesn't contain the word solar so it must be agreeing with us". Laughable. ????

 

 

Those terms were chosen to cast the widest possible net since those are the terms most widely used by denialists. He was actually trying to make sure that none were missed

But if it's  peer reviewed research  you want, here's a list of all I could  could find of those done in the last decade.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467616634958

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ERL....16j4030M

 

Let's just say that the aren't supportive of deniers stances.

 

If you like I can also share with you the stance of several leading scientific organizations on the issue.

 

47 minutes ago, Cory1848 said:

Unfortunately, a large percentage of people say that they get their *hard news* from Twitter, Facebook, and the like. Then, based on their confused perception of reality, they vote into office legislators who are in the pockets of the fossil fuels industry.

Yes that is what happens, but it's the lefties that were in control of all the media until Musk.

And they've been voting in the wokes, but now you're all crying because Musk doesn't care who posts what.

Which is why censorship by one side is wrong.

But allow everyone to post their nonsense and it all equals out.

46 minutes ago, Cory1848 said:

 

 

It’s not Twitter’s job to educate the general public. At the same time, however, Twitter should be aware of the influence it has over society, and act accordingly. Free speech has its limits.

Do tell? How many people on the planet and how many use twitter?

I don't use it at all, ergo it has zero influence over me, and I am part of society.

 

To all those claiming that man made climate change is a fact- if it was actually agreed on by all scientists there wouldn't be any dispute, but it's not, is it?

 

When the well know people ( Gore, De Caprio etc ) spouting about it IMO either don't believe it or don't care about it as they fly about on their private jets, and when former presidents buy water front property in Hawaii, it makes sceptics of many of us.

So long as those people are promoting the idea that we are responsible, don't expect all of us to believe it.

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Do tell? How many people on the planet and how many use twitter?

I don't use it at all, ergo it has zero influence over me, and I am part of society.

 

To all those claiming that man made climate change is a fact- if it was actually agreed on by all scientists there wouldn't be any dispute, but it's not, is it?

 

When the well know people ( Gore, De Caprio etc ) spouting about it IMO either don't believe it or don't care about it as they fly about on their private jets, and when former presidents buy water front property in Hawaii, it makes sceptics of many of us.

So long as those people are promoting the idea that we are responsible, don't expect all of us to believe it.

It's political sheeple disputing man made climate change and nobody else. The fact that people fly across the Atlantic instead of rowing makes you skeptical? Really?