- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,927
- Reactions
- 14,004
What's your theory ?
My apologies, how did you conclude that this purported warming is solely attributable to greenhouse gases?
What's your theory ?
My theory is that mankind is giving itself far more credit for its ability to understand and influence the environment than is truly waŕranted.
If someone can direct me to some actual scientific proof that my theory is false, then I would be more than willing to reconsider my position. Until that time, I consider it appropriate that those insisting on action demonstrate an adequate understanding of the causation behind the phenomena they believe themselves to have observed.
Before engaging in remedial action, a number of questions ideally need to be answered:
(i) Is there an actual problem that needs to be fixed?
(ii) Will the chosen remedy actually fix the problem?
(iii) What problematic side effects will result from application of the chosen remedy and how do these problems compare to the severity and managability of the original problem?
We keep going around in circles so I'll stop here.
I prefer to take notice of scientists and the theory that if we don't do anything or wait another 20 years before we see the continuation of the trend it will then be too late to do anything.
What's the problem with switching to renewable energy ? We will have to do it anyway eventually. It will create thousands more jobs than digging up coal. All the mum and dad businesses installing rooftop solar. That's what I think a lot of people are afraid of, diversion of power (electrical and political) away from corporations to the individual.
Phased in renewable energy has far more advantages than disadvantages. If we keep coal power for emergencies, renewables will extend the life of our coal resources.
Phasing in renewables is a no brainer. It's already being done with devices like the Tesla powerwall. It will happen anyway, climate change or not.
Probabpy...
What's the problem with switching to renewable energy ? We will have to do it anyway eventually. It will create thousands more jobs ...
Phased in renewable energy has far more advantages than disadvantages. If we keep coal power for emergencies, renewables will extend the life of our coal resources.
Phasing in renewables is a no brainer. It's already being done with devices like the Tesla powerwall. It will happen anyway, climate change or not.
Probabpy
I think the questions regarding renewable energy are worthy of some examination.
Some of these renewable sources may not be as renewable as they initially seem.
Do you understand from whence the tesla powerwaĺl draws its energy?
Solar PV.
Ah ha. Sorry for my confusion, I thought you were referring to technology attributable to the discovery of a non electrical planetary current by the geniue, Nikola Tesla.
Rechargeable batteries do have their usefulness, but are not an energy source in their own right. My understanding is thatnthese solar panels feeding them do have a limited lifespan. Are the essential components easily recyclable into new panels or are we depleting another finite resource?
Solar PV panels last about 25 years I believe and there are recycling programs operating or planned. You would expect the cost of the technology to keep falling as new types of cells are discovered.
So from what you are saying, it seems that these recyclers are planning to contend with a sizable number of exhausted panels within the next twenty to forty years (good luck with that!) and, in the meantime there is an expectation that new discoveries supplanting this "renewable" energy source technology will be made.
Can you see how this might be tantamount to supplanting a doubtful problem with a definite problem?
What global warming? Antarctic ice is INCREASING by 135billion tonnes a year, says NASA
A NEW Nasa study of the Antarctic from space has thrown the case for climate change into disarray after finding that more NEW new ice has formed at the Antarctic than…
http://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...tarctic-ice-INCREASING-135BILLION-TONNES-year
Modus operandi -
Make huge alarmist claim which gets headlines in the Grauniad and other branches of Pravda.
Claim gets analyzed and discredited by more level heads which gets almost no mainstream coverage.
Alarmists (including red tainted POTUS) perpetuate original discredited claim, safe in the knowledge that most will never see the rebuttals.
If rebuttals are known, Ad Hominem and Strawman (inter alia)argumentative fallacies are immediately employed to discredit the authors, san being able to discredit the actual rebuttal.
The 97% being the classic example.
Yet they still struggle to alarm the majority.
Facts Clear Astrophysicist Soon of Wrongdoing While Indicting Journalists Covering Climate Debate
Guest Blogger / 9 hours ago May 9, 2016
Guest opinion by Ron Arnold
Willie Soon, Ph.D., is an astrophysicist in the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Soon’s career has proven to be a textbook example of speaking truth to power and bravely facing the consequences.
Beginning in 1994, Soon produced an important series of astrophysics papers on the Sun’s impact on Earth’s climate, which received positive discussion in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) second and third assessment reports, released in 1996 and 2001, respectively. Throughout the 1990s, IPCC still acknowledged there were uncertainties about humankind’s potential influence on climate, despite pressure from nongovernmental organizations to find a “smoking gun” in the weak data.
In his 2007 book History of the Science and Politics of Climate Change, Bert Bolin, co-creator and first chairman of IPCC, deplored the denial of uncertainty, writing, “It was non-governmental groups of environmentalists, supported by the mass media who were the ones exaggerating the conclusions that had been carefully formulated by the IPCC.”
In 1997, Bolin told the Associated Press, “Global warming is not something you can ‘prove.’ You try to collect evidence and thereby a picture emerges.”
Soon’s study about the influence of the Sun on climate made him a target for alarmists, but Soon had defenders. In a 2013, Boston Globe article, iconic physicist Freeman Dyson praised Soon.
“The whole point of science is to question accepted dogmas,” said Dyson. “For that reason, I respect Willie Soon as a good scientist and a courageous citizen.”
Unjustified ‘Conflict of Interest’ Claims
In February 2015, Greenpeace agent Kert Davies, a vocal critic of Soon since 1997, falsely accused him of wrongfully failing to disclose “conflicts of interest” to an academic journal he submitted research to. Despite the fact the journal’s editors and the Smithsonian Institution found no violation of their disclosure or conflict of interest rules, Davies’ accusation created a clamor amongst alarmist reporters, who repeated the claim without further investigation.
The Greenpeace ruckus brought pressure from the Obama administration on the Harvard-Smithsonian Center to silence climate skeptics. Smithsonian responded with an elaborate new “Directive on Standards of Conduct,” which forced its employees to wade through bureaucratic rules replete with an ethics counselor and a “Loyalty to the Smithsonian” clause.
Despite the pressure applied to Smithsonian, its inspector general found Soon had not broken any rules, prompting additional attacks from alarmists.
In March and April 2016, two outlets published stories scurrilously demonizing Soon, relying heavily on bogus claims. The two activist-writers, David Hasemyer, who worked for the controversial InsideClimateNews, and Paul Basken, who worked for The Chronicle of Higher Education, seem to have forgotten journalistic ethics and the facts.
Thanks again for the laughs noco.
Pure gold.
For those who see you trying to argue with an idiot will see you as an idiot as well.
With the aim of improving your education perhaps you would like to read this:
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/
Nice one Rumopy.
Did you also show that to your Mummy when you arrived home from kindergarten?
Bless you my son.
.
With the aim of improving your education perhaps you would like to read this:
https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/
One look at their "Think like a scientist" revealed this site content for the opinionated rubbish that it is!
Nice one! Indoctrinate them whilst they're still young and hope that they will grow up to become preprogrammed and unquestioning supporters of this misguided crusade!
What unscientific statements did they maker ?
Have you actually read the section I am referring to?!
Exactly where in the "Think like a scientist" section may one find insight into the thought processes of a scientist?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?