That I don't have Skype is an undeniable fact, but I'd also like to show Rikkor my cock
Quick links: NewsBiscuit Home • Chat Room • Writers' Room • Top Ten
This is exactly why some people are sceptical about global warming news
(101 posts) (29 voices)
-
waylandsmithy
offlineMemberMassive increases in sea level are still being touted to kids today, check this out:
Towards the bottom, there's a map showing the effects of a 'sea level rise of just 3 metres'.
3 metres? Why not really shit people up, and show one for a rise of 12 miles?
Posted 5 months ago # -
beau-jolly
offlineMemberCan I make 2 points?
1) as I said before, its about the rate of climate change not climate change per se. Climate change is natural. That's why there were vineyards in Lincoln in Tudor times and fairs on the frozen Thames in Victorian times. The debate is whether we can measure the effect that human activity is having on the rate at which the natural climate change takes place. Bit vain I think.
2) Bacup FC is way high.Posted 5 months ago # -
Oxbridge:
For 20 year, an infinitesimally small length of time in geological terms, that is incredibly quick. And the vast majority of the effects are yet to come.
Erm, no its not. At the end of the last Ice Age, there was a period when global sea levels rose by 1.2metres IN A DECADE.
And all of that supposed sea level rise would be an infinitesimal uptick on the changes in global sea levels over the last several hundred thousand years.
and over the last few thousand years, eustatic sea levels have fluctuated much greater than the recent past.
Oh, and fuck off Saltire.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Lucy4
offlineMemberI love pseudo-scientists, they can dig up anything to support any arguement. You have a graph. Mr A, from 1961 and another from 1986, with the name Shackleton attached to it. Is it THE Shackleton, long dead before the year in question?
However,I do think that those who think it's "vain" to think that 8 billion of us parasites cannot change the climate are sticking their head up their own arses but also that covering the landscape with subsidised wind turbines is not the answer. The poor consumer is paying for a huge number of inefficient and not particularly "green" sources of energy (when you consider the rare earth components). A bit of fracking in Lancashire would solve our problems for decades. So what if Blackpool tower falls over, they've still got another one in Paris.
I also think you should stop being abusive to fellow NB contributors. And just a day after St Andrew's day as well. You ought to be ashamed of yourself John. I suspect that in a poll of who folk would like being flogged to death by a deep fried battered version of the eco-warrior 2013 calender (Scottish Highland edition); you'd win.Posted 5 months ago # -
Al OPecia
offlineMemberSorry that you don't like the facts, it's happening wether you like it or not (and scientists aren't responsible for reporters fuck ups either). As B-J and others have pointed out, it's the rate of change that is important, and the increased variance in climate events i.e.:
That means we have extreme events more often heatwaves, floods, droughts etc, because of the increased energy in the atmosphere.
Wayland and Co. Why don't you fuck of the the US and join the Tea Party. You won't have to trouble yourselves with thinking about evolution either.
Nice picture Saltire, looks like you've had practice.
Posted 5 months ago # -
I like Al's graph more than John's because it's in colour. So I'm going to drive to the shop and buy some energy saving lightbulbs. And some flippers just in case.
Unless anybody has an even more colourful graph saying it's all a lie...
Don't even get me started on the myth that is evolution.
Posted 5 months ago # -
waylandsmithy
offlineMemberNice, Al. Insults combined with a pretty graph with no labels on the axes. Conclusive proof of exactly what I think is the problem with global warming science reporting.
People say 'hang on, you said this was going to happen, but it didn't. You don't seem to have quite the grasp on this subject that you claimed.' And the response from the science community is 'fuck off, you're an idiot.'
I'm going outside to burn some tyres. Don't worry, I'm offsetting the emissions by creating a virus that kills bald people.
Ooh, there's a sub in that idea: offset mass murder. Fuck me, I've solved the crisis.
Posted 5 months ago # -
beau-jolly
offlineMemberCan we just ban the phrase "global warming" and stick to "climate change"? Then when it snows in the rest of the country we won't shrug and say "global warming eh, Tsch!"
Posted 5 months ago # -
Al OPecia
offlineMemberWayland wade through this if you can be bothered:
http://www.arkive.org/climate-change/
If you can't I don't care.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Sinnick
offlineMemberLook, can I be patronising for a second ? I'll take that moment's silence as "yes".
I don't have anything against climate sceptics. It's a very valid point of view. I'm sceptical about many things. I don't believe that most scientists have it right about black holes, for example. I believe that life is abundant in the universe, but we'll never get remotely close to communicating with them, ever. I don't believe in any form of deity. These are opinions not facts.
Man-made climate change is FACT, not opinion. It has more evidence for it than just about anything else in science, ever.
I'd suggest that climate sceptics have a serious think about why they don't believe what is sitting in front of them. The enormity of the problem, the apparently contrary evidence, the incredibly slow timescale (in human terms), the unbelievable impact if it's true, the frustration of being unable to do anything to resolve it ... humans just aren't used to that sort of problem. I'm almost surprised more folk aren't asking questions. But then, the vast majoriy of scientists, fundraisers and politicians remain persuaded, so surely there's something to it ?
Ask anyone in Africa, or the lower reaches of Asia, or in the firestorms of California or S Africa, or anyone visiting the Barrier Reefs - is there Climate Change ?
So, when the UK weather suddenly switches next year from wet summers to 40C heatwave, or when Mauritius disappears forever in 10 years, or California cities are destroyed by fire, or when Polar Bears go extinct in 15 years, ask yourself whether all this delay was really worth it, just to get that 100% certainty.
Personally, I was convinced when the evidence was presented at my Chemistry lectures at Uni, in 1975. It took decades before anyone took any notice of something that was so fucking obvious.
Posted 5 months ago # -
waylandsmithy
offlineMember'ask yourself whether all this delay was really worth it'.
What delay? What do you want me to do? I've already got a car with a poxy engine and lightbulbs I can't read by. I buy locally produced food because it's cheaper and I like the people who run the shops (or at least I hate them less than the people in the supermarkets).
Who do you want me to kill?
Posted 5 months ago # -
Al OPecia
offlineMemberWhat Sinnick said.
Arrhenius actually cracked it in 1896 "if the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression".
Laws of the Universe aren't opinion.
Posted 5 months ago # -
waylandsmithy
offlineMemberAl, FFS. I didn't say 'it's all made up', I just pointed out that it's massively mis-reported, and people are claiming to know with absolute certainty what will happen in the future, when they clearly don't.
Can the scientists stop pretending they know everything? A lot of scientific research is basically founded on being continuously slightly wrong. But we only have one planet, so it's best not to screw with it unnecessarily.
The bigger problem is: if scientists keep shrieking 'we're all doomed! It's all too late!' for the sake of their research getting publicity, they're mis-representing what they know. We might be fucked, we might not be.
I think this is why I prefer engineers to scientists: they look for solutions, not more bloody problems.
I take offense at the suggestion I read the Daily Mail, though. I read the Telegraph. It has a much better motoring section.
Posted 5 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.