Climate Protests

Leo said:
So a random collection of unproven theories is more compelling than science?

The problem with trying to link climate change with volcanic activity is that there is no evidence that volcanic activity is increasing. The crackpot theorists are using increased reporting to suggest that there is an increase without any scientific evidence to back it up, but guess what, there was no internet where everything was logged back in the 1400s!
Click to expand...
Unproven therioes, did you actually look at the information available on his website, the answer is simply no as there was not enough time since my last post, as I have said before Al gore the u.s vp with all the best scientists available said new York would be under water by 2012, or maybe their fake scientists, o that's right we should believe the science. I have said that volcanoes have emitted more co2 than cars, did you actually research the amount of active volcanoes around the earth in the last 100 years?I have said anybody with a different opinion is treated with distain, you have proved my point on that. O that's right your a scientist we need a forest the size of America to compensate for increasing co2 levels, its the same with economists, its hard to know who to believe thats my opinion.
 
You're on a hiding to nothing here Bill. Even if you turn out to be right you will be told you are right for the wrong reasons and those who are wrong will be wrong for the right reasons. When you're labelled a denier it does give off a whiff of the ideological. Surely those who are in denial are those who think that everyone else will drastically change their lifestyle and that poorer countries will curtail efforts to develop. The changes we are actually willing to make may dampen the affects but otherwise we will just have to adapt to whatever version of climate change transpires.
 
michaelm said:
You're on a hiding to nothing here Bill. Even if you turn out to be right you will be told you are right for the wrong reasons and those who are wrong will be wrong for the right reasons. When you're labelled a denier it does give off a whiff of the ideological. Surely those who are in denial are those who think that everyone else will drastically change their lifestyle and that poorer countries will curtail efforts to develop. The changes we are actually willing to make may dampen the affects but otherwise we will just have to adapt to whatever version of climate change transpires.
Click to expand...
It's not about being right, heaven knows I am wrong on a lot of things, I do believe in climate change as its cyclical in nature, I feel its been ramed down our throats, when the likes of Al gore make statements with the support of the best scientists available who do we believe, were are the real scientists contradictoing there conclusions. they make projections about what's going to happen by 2050 and yet they cannot tell the weather in a months time. That's why I am skeptical.
 
BilliamD75 said:
I have said that volcanoes have emitted more co2 than cars
Click to expand...
Every link posted so far refutes your "opinion". Can you offer any scientific evidence to back up your opinion?
Can you also link to where Al Gore said that New York would be under water by 2012?
BilliamD75 said:
they make projections about what's going to happen by 2050 and yet they cannot tell the weather in a months time. That's why I am skeptical.
Click to expand...
Ah, okay; you are sceptical because you don't know the difference between weather and climate.
BilliamD75 said:
I do believe in climate change as its cyclical in nature
Click to expand...
Yes, it does. The issue here is the additional change caused by human activity.
 
BilliamD75 said:
Unproven therioes, did you actually look at the information available on his website, the answer is simply no as there was not enough time since my last post,
Click to expand...

Of course I didn't read it all, once I read enough to know he was talking rubbish, why would I keep going? It really is crackpot nonsense with no evidence whatsoever. If volcanic activity isn't increasing, why try to claim it is such a factor in recent climate change?

He says 'What I can confirm is that volcanic eruptions play a tremendous part in creating Global Cooling'. It's well understood that some of the larger ones certainly can result in cooling events. It's believed that a super volcano around Greenland caused crop failure around the world, but the effects were short lived. That volcano was estimated to have released around 45 cubic miles of rock. Nothing even approaching that scale has occurred in recent history, but he conveniently ignores that.

What is the major global significance of the Irish potato famine that it plays holds such a significant place on that page? It's more than a bit tenuous to try to link that to a volcano 30 years earlier!
 
It's not about Armstrong and his ilk Leo, it's about the information and is it science fiction or science fact or weather what Al gore's boys and girls are saying is an inconvenient truth. Nor is about showing links to disprove others opinions, people will believe what they want too believe like me. Nor is it about the active volcanoes above and below sea level emitting co2 levels v emissions from cars or weather what produces more and who can tell or weather co2 being nature's building blocks for trees and plants or weather we need a forest the size of the US to compensate or weather stopping deforestation is a good place to start, or weather science can make predictions for 2050 accounting for unknowns and the complexity that brings or weather giving an example that predictions for the next months weather is unpredictable and knowing the difference however just to give an example.
I am a citizen of humanity also and want to leave the earth in a better place for my family than I got it in, we recycle everything and plastics are a big no no for us as we can see them in our oceans and on our streets. At this moment in time I am skeptical of the science provided by the public sector paid scientists, thats my opinion and its the opposite of the majority which is fine by me.
 
Whatever about whether people believe in climate change or not, there should be a better discussion on how to tackle it. Many scientists and engineers do not believe that it is realistic to do this with renewables. In fact renewables will cause more problems than they solve simply because the energy that they seek to exploit is dilute and spread over the surface of the earth. It is relatively easy to decommision a conventional power station and many have been decommissioned successfully, this is because they are in a single location usually urban.
It's a completely different story to try and decommision a wind farm in the sea or tidal contraptions, of course nobody is thinking about this . Even on land windfarms are located in isolated usually very scenic locations, they are spread over large areas, it will be a huge task and cost to dismantle them and take them down. What about the thousands of tons of concrete in the ground, how do you take that back up again if you want to grow trees or crops again. As the global population continues to increase growing food might be a much bigger priority than wind energy. Windfarms consume a lot of resources especially land and materials.
 
BilliamD75 said:
It's not about Armstrong and his ilk Leo, it's about the information and is it science fiction or science fact or weather what Al gore's boys and girls are saying is an inconvenient truth. Nor is about showing links to disprove others opinions, people will believe what they want too believe like me. Nor is it about the active volcanoes above and below sea level emitting co2 levels v emissions from cars or weather what produces more and who can tell or weather co2 being nature's building blocks for trees and plants or weather we need a forest the size of the US to compensate or weather stopping deforestation is a good place to start, or weather science can make predictions for 2050 accounting for unknowns and the complexity that brings or weather giving an example that predictions for the next months weather is unpredictable and knowing the difference
Click to expand...
Okay, it's not about facts or data or science. What's it about so?

Facts cannot be countered with an "I just think"
 
Purple said:
Okay, it's not about facts or data or science. What's it about so?

Facts cannot be countered with an "I just think"
Click to expand...
Can you say as a matter of fact or scientific fact what the climate will be in 2050, the answer is simply no you cannot. You have your scientific opinion and I have mine, we will never agree and that's fine by me
 
No one knows what climate will be like in 2050 but surely this is about risk management??. The bulk of scientists believe the world is warming and that it is going to accelerate, especially as the tundra melts and releases it's long stored carbon. This may be a natural phenomona, it may be man made or it may be a combination of both. If it doesn't happen, what have we lost out on.?? In reality not a lot. But what if it does.?? Then what do we stand to lose?. It's like insuring your house, you hope you never have to claim but you still do it just in case and in the meantime, you fix the roof so it doesn't blow off.

And if the impact of what people are starting to do now is less garbage on the street, a change to our throw away disposable culture over time and cleaner seas and better air, then I'm all in favour of that.
 
BilliamD75 said:
Can you say as a matter of fact or scientific fact what the climate will be in 2050, the answer is simply no you cannot. You have your scientific opinion and I have mine, we will never agree and that's fine by me
Click to expand...
Nobody can say what the climate will be like in 2050 and nobody says they can. What the overwhelming majority of climate scientists do agree on, as a matter of fact, not opinion, is that human activity is fundamentally changing the climate and the consequences will be negative for our species and many others.

This is not an opinion. There is no parity of evidence here; there is fact and science on one side and conjecture, hyperbole, personal agendas and willful ignorance on the other.
 
Peanuts20 said:
No one knows what climate will be like in 2050 but surely this is about risk management??. The bulk of scientists believe the world is warming and that it is going to accelerate, especially as the tundra melts and releases it's long stored carbon. This may be a natural phenomona, it may be man made or it may be a combination of both. If it doesn't happen, what have we lost out on.?? In reality not a lot. But what if it does.?? Then what do we stand to lose?. It's like insuring your house, you hope you never have to claim but you still do it just in case and in the meantime, you fix the roof so it doesn't blow off.

And if the impact of what people are starting to do now is less garbage on the street, a change to our throw away disposable culture over time and cleaner seas and better air, then I'm all in favour of that.
Click to expand...
That's where I am at. Question of risk management. Maybe they are right. I wouldn't totally give up driving cars or air travel, that would be too high an insurance premium.
Having said that, the human condition seems to crave impending Armageddon theories - remember Y2K? One thing's for sure we were never going to hear a chorus of "keep it up lads this global warming is going to bring heaven on earth", even though prima facie we in Irealnd at least might have looked forward to a bit of GW.
How dare I?:oops:
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
even though prima facie we in Irealnd at least might have looked forward to a bit of GW.
How dare I?:oops:
Click to expand...
High water and air temperatures mean more moisture in the air in the Gulf Stream. That means wetter winters and more storms and flooding as heat = energy. We aren't going to turn into the South of France.
With decreased salt levels in the oceans we may see a significant change in global currents. That would mean less gulfstream and colder weather in the winter as our temperate maritime climate becomes closer to a continental climate.
 
Purple said:
Nobody can say what the climate will be like in 2050 and nobody says they can. What the overwhelming majority of climate scientists do agree on, as a matter of fact, not opinion, is that human activity is fundamentally changing the climate and the consequences will be negative for our species and many others.

This is not an opinion. There is no parity of evidence here; there is fact and science on one side and conjecture, hyperbole, personal agendas and willful ignorance on the other.
Click to expand...
Hyperbole and ignorance really,consequences for our species wow, is it hyperbole that the best scientists available to Al gore stating that new York will be under water or is the stuff of science fiction, clearly beyond all doubt they were wrong. You clearly side stepped a response to that.
I provided a source to the opposite side of your opinion which is clearly crackpot stuff and all the data provided by that source is there for all to see, I do not agree with it as in my opinion its science fiction also or hyperbole as you say.
Should I believe a sixteen year old last week who is clearly on the edge saying I and my generation are to blame and she will never forgive us. She will have plenty of time to reflect on her long walk home to reduce her carbon footprint. There are forces at work here that we do not comprend, the worst of human traits is we believe we have it all figured out and know it all when we do not, I am skeptical of all the so called data to climate change being pushed from all sides, thats my opinion and it is time for me to move on from this.
 
BilliamD75 said:
and all the data provided by that source is there for all to see
Click to expand...

You never explained how that volcano caused the famine here 30 years later. That site provides no data or evidence to support the hypothesis, perhaps you could explain?
 
BilliamD75 said:
Al gore stating that new York will be under water
Click to expand...
Under water by 2012 you say. I didn't sidestep it; I asked you for a link to it. Can you supply one please?
BilliamD75 said:
I provided a source to the opposite side of your opinion
Click to expand...
No you didn't, you referenced one crackpot who, if he knows as much about climate change as he does about the Irish Famine, knows next to nothing about anything.
BilliamD75 said:
I provided a source to the opposite side of your opinion which is clearly crackpot stuff and all the data provided by that source is there for all to see, I do not agree with it as in my opinion its science fiction also or hyperbole as you say.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the source you provided is science fiction also or hyperbole?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top