Jump to content

Globel Warming


Recommended Posts

What on earth are you prattling on about?  When did I mention an ice age? So come on, show me proof that acid rain doesn't exist.


Acid rain doesn't exist? How could anyone on this forum suggest such a thing - when it was here in Warrington acid rain was first recognised!


It had previously been thought that the first recognition of acid rain and the damage caused by it was in the USA in the 1860's.   Nowadays it's known that it was here in Warrington in the 1840's!

There is a famous court case in which Lord Gerard of Garswood sued Gamble / Crossfield's works for damage caused by the emissions from their works falling (in acid rain) on Lord Gerard's Land.  



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still waiting for examples of doom laden warnings about climate change that have actually come true.


For me the question here is about how much faith we have in science in general, not just the doomster stuff. What I find odd is that many people are happy to trust what science tells us when it comes down to things like personal health, but think we know better than scientists when it comes to bigger questions. There’s lots of examples, both positive and negative, of science getting it right:






I’m sure you can come up with scores of examples where science has got it wrong, even I could do that, but science never claimed to know everything and science isn’t, well, an exact science.


The majority of scientists haven’t publicly expressed on opinion one way or the other on climate change, and this may be because: they don’t know; they don’t have an opinion; nobody asked them, or they simply can’t be arsed. Of those who have expressed an opinion, the overwhelming majority of them (around 97%), believe that the earth is getting hotter and that this is most likely due to human activity. A very small percentage of the scientific community as a whole have said that they do believe the earth is getting hotter, but it’s nothing to do with us, guv. Now, fearless internet iconoclast that you are, guess which group you’re pitching in with?


It’s a fact that the earth is getting hotter, and it’s now hotter than has ever been recorded. Of course, you’ll maintain that this is completely natural, but nature’s never made it this hot before. You can wibble on about all the predictions being done by computer modelling or whatever, ‘cos scientists never get it right anyway, and they may well be wrong. What you’re banking on though, is that they’ve got it wrong in the right way, i.e. that it’s not going to be anywhere near as bad as they say it is. You’re convinced they’re going to be wrong, but have you considered that if they are wrong, then they might just be wrong in the wrong way, and things will be far worse than they’re suggesting?


Oh, seen this?




100% global warming consensus in Exxon scientists’ research contrasted its $31m campaign to cast doubt on that consensus

This means that there is a 100% consensus on human-caused global warming among Exxon’s peer-reviewed climate science research – even higher than the 97% consensus in the rest of the peer reviewed literature.


Face it mate, you’re going the way of the dodo:




So c'mon, where's this ice age? Give me your best shot.


That was asperity so best ask him, I’m sure he has lots of reliable scientific evidence to back up his prediction (it’s bound to happen at some point in the future anyway).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s a fact that the earth is getting hotter, and it’s now hotter than has ever been recorded.


Really Fugs? And for how long has the earth's temperature been recorded? A couple of hundred years at best, and not globally at that. Research has shown that temperatures  have indeed been warmer than now - in Roman times and the Medieval Warm Period for example. It has been vastly warmer even during this interglacial, and all indications are that we are headed towards another ice age with this slightly warmer period just another blip in the record.


You bring up that old "97% of scientists" myth again. This turns out to be 97% of scientists who answered a questionaire on climate change (with questions along the lines of "do you think the climate is changing" "do you think the world is warming" " do you think that mankind may have an influence on climate"), and it turns out that the 97% is actually 97% of around 75 scientists, of all disciplines, who could be bothered to answer, gave the answers the survey wanted. Not exactly "scientific".



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what you hope to prove with that link apart from showing that global warming/climate change believers would rather hurl abuse at anyone who dares challenge their "consensus" than try to engage in meaningful debate.


As for me "costing Exxon a fortune" wellI didn't realise I was that influential. Exxon, by the way, contribute a lot more than a measly $31m to climate research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lordy, it's like trying to play chess with a pigeon.

You have no reasonable argument then? Just some obscure comment. I rest my case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No amount of "statistical analysis" will show what the effects of a 2 degree rise in temperature...


I somehow feel that "statistical analysis" will show the effects of a 2 degree rise in temparature. Afterall, the people that do this are extremely skilled at their jobs and when something like this hits the news it's really not going to be scaremongering, but what is 'likely' to happen. I recognise that they might get minor things wrong, but only small details, most of their predictions are based on things that we can already see happening today that is likely to worsen in the near future. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what are these "things that we can already see happening today"? Or is that just a phrase you've seen written down somewhere? Perhaps a quote from that renowned climate expert Prince (I talk to the trees) Charles? There is nothing happening to the natural world that hasn't happened before or won't happen again. It's called natural variability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...